alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6976 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens who 

have been convicted of or who have committed an offense for driving 

while intoxicated or impaired are inadmissible and deportable. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2024 

Mr. MOORE of Alabama introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 

that aliens who have been convicted of or who have 

committed an offense for driving while intoxicated or 

impaired are inadmissible and deportable. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Our Commu5 nities from DUIs Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6976 IH

1 SEC. 2. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY RELATED 

2 TO DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED OR IM3 PAIRED. 

4 (a) INADMISSIBILITY.—Section 212(a)(2) of the Im5 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(J) DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED OR IM8 PAIRED.—Any alien who has been convicted of, 

9 who admits having committed, or who admits 

10 committing acts which constitute the essential 

11 elements of, an offense for driving while intoxi12 cated or impaired, as those terms are defined 

13 under the law of the jurisdiction where the con14 viction, offense, or acts constituting the essen15 tial elements of the offense, occurred (including 

16 a conviction for driving while under the influ17 ence of or impaired by alcohol or drugs), with18 out regard to whether the conviction or offense 

19 is classified as a misdemeanor or felony under 

20 Federal, State, tribal, or local law, is inadmis21 sible.’’. 

22 (b) DEPORTABILITY.—Section 237(a)(2) of the Im23 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is 

24 amended by adding at the end the following: 

25 ‘‘(G) DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED OR IM26 PAIRED.—Any alien who has been convicted of 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6976 IH

1 an offense for driving while intoxicated or im2 paired, as those terms are defined under the 

3 law of the jurisdiction where the conviction oc4 curred (including a conviction for driving while 

5 under the influence of or impaired by alcohol or 

6 drugs), without regard to whether the convic7 tion is classified as a misdemeanor or felony 

8 under Federal, State, tribal, or local law, is de9 portable.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<PAGE>






                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Thomas G. Wiggans, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

(2)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at
the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: August 5, 2004

/s/ Thomas G. Wiggans
------------------------------------
Thomas G. Wiggans
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Joshua Neil HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16782

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

Joshua Neil Harrell, Pro Se

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Joshua Neil Harrell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Harrell’s action because Harrell failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. *See Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); *see also West v. Atkins,*487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988) (elements of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); *Kentucky v. Graham,*473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) (an official capacity suit is to be treated as a suit against the governmental entity and “a governmental entity is liable under § 1983 only when the entity itself is a moving force behind the deprivation[;] the entity’s policy or custom must have played a part in the violation of federal law” (citations and internal quotation marks)); *Starr v. Baca,*652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v, Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6739 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6739

To modify and extend the temporary authority of the President to modify 
 certain contracts and options based on the impacts of inflation, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2023

  Mr. Bacon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify and extend the temporary authority of the President to modify 
 certain contracts and options based on the impacts of inflation, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defense Contract Inflation 
Adjustment Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY AUTHORITY TO MODIFY 
              CERTAIN CONTRACTS AND OPTIONS BASED ON THE IMPACTS OF 
              INFLATION.

    Section 1 of Public Law 85-804 (50 U.S.C. 1431) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following 
        new sentence: ``If any such amounts are so specifically 
        provided, the Secretary may use them for such purposes.''; and
            (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``December 31, 2023'' 
        and inserting ``December 31, 2024''.
                                 <all>
```
PUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  T HE R EALT RUTH A BOUT O BAMA , I NC ., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. F EDERALE LECTION C OMMISSION ; U NITED S TATES D EPARTMENT OF No. 08-1977



#  J USTICE , Defendants-Appellees.

C AMPAIGN L EGALC ENTER ; D EMOCRACY 21, Amici Supporting Appellees. 

# 

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.

(S. Ct. No. 09-724)

Decided on Remand: June 8, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, C. Arlen BEAM, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation, and Joseph F. ANDERSON, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

Published Order on Remand from the Supreme Court entered per curiam.COUNSEL

Michael Boos, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL BOOS, Fairfax, Virginia; James Bopp, Jr., Richard E. Coleson, Clayton J.Callen, BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM, Terre Haute, Indiana, for Appellant. Thomasenia P. Duncan, General Counsel, David Kolker, Associate General Counsel, Harry J. Summers,Assistant General Counsel, Adav Noti, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Washington, D.C.; Gregory G. Katsas,Assistant Attorney General, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Michael S.Raab, Eric Fleisig-Greene, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Donald J. Simon, SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, SACHSE, ENDRESON & PERRY, LLP, Washington, D.C., Fred Wertheimer, DEMOCRACY 21, Washington, D.C., for Democracy 21, Amicus Supporting Appellees; J. Gerald Hebert, Paul S. Ryan, Tara Malloy, THE CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Campaign Legal Center, Amicus Supporting Appellees.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the government may not, under the First Amendment, suppress speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity and that a statutoryprohibition of corporate spending for electioneering communications violated the First Amendment. Based on that holding, the Court granted the petition filed in this case for a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment, reported in The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission

, 2 T HE R EALT RUTH v. FCC575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009), and remanded this case for "further consideration in light of Citizens United . . . and the Solicitor General’s suggestion of mootness." The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission , 78U.S.L.W. 3627 (U.S. Apr. 26, 2010). On further consideration, we now reissue Parts I and II of our earlier opinion inthis case, 575 F.3d at 345-347, stating the facts and articulating the standard for the issuance of preliminary injunctions. On the remaining issues, we remand the case to the district court for consideration of the intervening Supreme Court decision in Citizens United and the Solicitor General’s new suggestion of mootness.

It is so ordered. 3

T HE R EALT RUTH v. FCC
Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-109495) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-34156
and 333-122242) of deltathree, Inc. (the "Company"), our report, dated February
21, 2006, relating to our audit of the financial statements of the Company as of
December 31, 2004 and 2005 and for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2004, and
2005 contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
A member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
March 29, 2006
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christian Hugo CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-2057

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed September 12, 2017

(D.C. No. 5:15-CR-01415-RB-3) (D. New Mexico)

Paige Messec, Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kathleen A. Lord, Lord Law Firm, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

Christian Hugo Contreras accepted a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to drug and money-laundering offenses. He was sentenced to 97 months of imprisonment, which was at the low end of the sentencing guidelines range. Although the plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, Contreras appealed. The government moves to enforce the appeal waiver under *United States v. Hahn,*359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).

Under *Hahn,*we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) *595whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” *Id.*at 1325. We need not address a *Hahn*factor that the appellant does not contest. *See United States v. Porter,*405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005).

In his response to the government’s motion, Contreras, through counsel, informs the court that he does not oppose the motion. Further, he has not contested any of the *Hahn*factors. Accordingly, the motion to enforce is granted, and this matter is terminated.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### Helene H. Burow, Appellant, *v.*Orison C. Bouton et al., Respondents.

Argued December 1, 1943;

decided January 13, 1944.

*819
      *John B. Bushong*for appellant.

*Alexander Brand*for respondents.

Judgment of the Appellate Division reversed, and the judgment entered upon the decision of the Official Referee affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division, on the ground that the decision of the Official Referee is in accord with the weight of the evidence. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### Kareem Dawud FARRAKHAN, Appellant, v. XEROX CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 80-1737.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1981.

Decided June 9, 1981.

William J. Riedmann, Omaha, Neb., for appellant.

Alex M. Clarke, Baird, Holm, McEachen, Pedersen, Hamann & Haggart, Omaha, Neb., for appellee.

Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and McMIL-LIAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kareem Dawud Farrakhan appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights action alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race. On two occasions, Farrakhan applied for and was rejected for the position of sales representative at Xerox. Following the second rejection, he filed charges of employment discrimination with the Omaha Human Relations Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming that he was denied employment because he is black. Both agencies issued determinations adverse to Farrakhan. He then brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., seeking $1 million in damages. He later amended his complaint to add a second cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and to increase his claim for damages to $2 billion.

After a trial, the district court found that there was no evidence of racial discrimination by Xerox against Farrakhan. The court went on to note that, even if Farrakhan had established a *prima facie*case of racial discrimination, Xerox had shown that its decision not to hire Farrakhan was based on valid business reasons. These reasons, the court found, were not a pretext for racial discrimination. Accordingly, the court concluded that Farrakhan had failed to carry his burden of proving that he had been discriminated against because of his race.

Having reviewed the briefs and the record in this case, we conclude that the evidence supports the determination of the district court. We therefore affirm its order of dismissal.
#### George W. Palmer, Resp’t, *v.*Eugene H. Conant *et al.,*App’lts.

*P. H. Fitzgerald,*for resp’t; *C. D. Prescott,*for app’lts.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 84 N. Y. State Rep., 816.
#### AIKEN vs. HALE & McDONALD.

Appeal from Lamar connty.

*.Breach of Contract*— Practice—Pleading—Case *Sated.*— The original petition claimed damages for breach of contract and did not, in subsequent pleadings, relinquish that character of claim, otherwise than by alternate prayer for specific performance, until by amendment, compensation was claimed for performance of service under such contract. The cause of action depended upon the same facts anti the same transaction throughout and the different variations occurring in pleadings at different times have had relation only to question of relief,, Held, not to change the character of the causo oí action. Under our system of pleading, the cause of action depends upon the facts stated in the petition appropriate for recovery, rather than the particular breach laid. Special exception was that “the cause of action attempted to be set up by plaintiff shows upon its face that it comes within the statute of frauds, and cannot be sustained.” The exception was properly overruled. It is an accepted doctrine that one who has rendered service in execution of a verbal contract which, on account of the statute cannot be enforced against the other party, can recover the value of the services rendered upon a quantum merieit.

Affirmed.

Walker, Commissioner.

Adopted.
### U NITE D 

### S TATES 

### D EPARTMENT OF 

### E DUCATION 

### U NITED 

### S TATES 

### D EPARTMENT OF 

### H EALTH AND 

### HUMAN SERVICES Month

__ , 20 1X Firstname Lastname Title Address Street Address City, ST ZIP Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. Lastname: We are writing to let you know of an important study sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) focused on the development and implementation of T iered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (TQRIS) under the Race to the Top

– Early L earning Challenge (RTT - ELC ) program . The RTT - ELC Descriptive Study of TQRIS will include all nine Round One RTT - ELC grantees . The first phase of the study will describe the components and indicators used in States’ TQRIS and assess the feasibility of relating TQRIS ratings to child outcomes using state data. The first phase , which is currently in process, will be informed by reviews of existing state documents and targeted interviews with representatives from all Round One RTT -ELC grantees . If feasible, the second phase of the study will examine the relationship between TQRIS ratings and child outcomes as measured by kindergarten entry assessments in two to three of the Phase One RTT - ELC states (or districts within those states) . IES has c ontracted with Mathematica Policy Research to conduct this study, which will provide important information for States as they continue to develop and refine their TQRIS. The enclosed information sheet provides more details. Your partnership and support are important to the success of the study. A member of the Mathematica research team will contact you soon to discuss the study and answer questions you may have about the process and your district ’s participation. If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact the Proj ect Director, Irma Perez - Johnson of Mathematica Policy Research at ( 609 ) 275 - 2339 or iperez - johnson @mathematica -m pr .com . You may also contact the IES project o fficer, Tracy Rimdzius at (202) 208 - 7154 or Tracy.Rimdzius@ed.gov . Thank you in advance for your cooperation. We hope that this study will be a useful source of information for policymakers and educators. Sincerely, Libby Doggett Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Early Learning Office of Elementary and Secondary Education/Office of Early Learning U.S. Depar

tment of Education Linda K. Smith Deputy Assistant Secretary for Early Childhood Development Administration for Children and Families U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
#### NATIONAL INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 22974.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 9, 1966.

Melvin B. Bishop, Daniel, Coker & Horton, Jackson, Miss., for appellant.

Alan S. Rosenthal, Robert J. Vollen, Jack H. Weiner, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., Robert V. Zener, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The questions presented on this appeal were resolved by this Court in United States of America v. Myers, 5th Cir. 1966, 363 F.2d 615. Therefore, the decision of the district court is hereby

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. TYREE BROWN, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 191 EAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 30th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6740 

To require the Secretary of Defense to amend the Department of Defense 

Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to include consideration of past performance of affiliates of small business concerns, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. BACON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Defense to amend the Department of Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation to include consideration of past performance 

of affiliates of small business concerns, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defense Small Busi5 ness Affiliate Consideration Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6740 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE OF AF2 FILIATES OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS. 

3 Not later than July 1, 2024, the Secretary of Defense 

4 shall amend section 215.305 of the Defense Federal Ac5 quisition Supplement (or any successor regulation) to re6 quire that when small business concerns bid on Depart7 ment of Defense contracts, the past performance evalua8 tion and source selection processes shall consider, if rel9 evant, the past performance information of affiliate com10 panies of the small business concerns. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of American Physicians Insurance Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc J. Zimmermann, Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|               |                                       |                       
|-------------- | ------------------------------------- | ----------------------
|April 27, 2007 |                                       |                       
|               | American Physicians Insurance Company
|               |                                       |                       
|               | By:                                   | /s/ Marc J. Zimmermann
|               | Chief Financial Officer