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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6901 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6901

 To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on 
    Department of Defense restrictions on the employment of former 
               Department employees by certain countries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 22, 2023

 Ms. Slotkin (for herself and Mr. Gallagher) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on 
    Department of Defense restrictions on the employment of former 
               Department employees by certain countries.

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

SECTION 1. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT 
              OF FORMER DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES BY CERTAIN COUNTRIES.

    (a) In General.--Not later than March 30, 2024, the Secretary of 
Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 
and House of Representatives a report that includes each of the 
following:
            (1) The policy of the Department of Defense in effect as of 
        the date of the enactment of this Act with respect to any 
        restrictions on the employment of former Department employees 
        by countries that exhibit adversarial behavior against the 
        interests of the United States.
            (2) An identification of the positions in the Department to 
        which such restrictions apply.
            (3) An identification of any incident when a former 
        employee of the Department worked for, or sought to work for, 
        any such country in contravention of such a restriction.
    (b) Form of Report.--The report required by subsection (a) shall be 
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001005407
<NAME> CHIREX INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,743
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,010
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,604
<PP&E>                                         122,907
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,273
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,979
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,558
<SALES>                                         46,280
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,663
<CGS>                                           34,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  75
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,012)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (516)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,496)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,496)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
        

</TABLE>
August 21, 2012

Mr. Dennis 

### J. DeVany Chief, Essential A.ir Service Division Office Aviation Analysis Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, ·Washington, 20590 Re: Essential Air 

### DOCKET Dear Mr. DeVany, ·1\o 

## 00 OFFICE OFTHE COMMISSIONER
P.O. Hox 196900**···"'·~·/'·~=** Alosko**99519~6900** lv1oin: 907.:269.0730

fox: 907.269.0489

I am writing to express my strong support for continuation ofthe Essential Air (EAS) program in and to emphasize the crucial access 

### it provides to ourremote communities. Due to the isolated location ofAdak Island, which lacks any road connection, subsidized air service is only form ofscheduled transportation. Adak depends on scheduled air carrier service fbr freight, passenger, and mail service fbr basic access to mutine health services, and econornic welfare. The State ofAlaska continues to assert that the local residents are generally best positioned to comment onparticular schedules or air carriers, and theref{)re we think the community should provide comments to you onthose specific areas. IrespectfullyurgeUS DOT to support and continue the EAS service at Adak. Sincerely,



# jfl___
s'teven D. Hatter Deputy Commissioner- Aviation
Exhibit 32.2   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Michael P. Horne, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Hunt Global resources, Inc, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Hunt Global Resources, Inc.  By: /s/ Michael P. Horne Michael P. Horne Chief Financial Officer  April 15, 2011
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert James GADSEN, a/k/a Robert James, a/k/a Axe-Head, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6055

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 3, 2017

Decided: August 25, 2017

*634Emily Deck Harrill, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert James Gadsen seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack *v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gadsen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          24,614
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             850
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                11,440
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    134,561
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          33,945
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            33,155
<LOANS>                                        347,730
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,792
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 586,885
<DEPOSITS>                                     511,928
<SHORT-TERM>                                    16,200
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,298
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,195
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,743
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 586,885
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,479
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,668
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    86
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,233
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,948
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,304
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,929
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      763
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,170
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,514
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,514
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.48
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,609
<LOANS-PAST>                                       705
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,542
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      607
<RECOVERIES>                                        94
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,792
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,792
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
American Wagering, Inc. Financial Data Schedule Required under: Appexxxx Item
601(c) of Regulation S-B Commercial and Industrial Companies Arxxxx Regulation
S-X
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,593,745
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  259,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (41,501)
<INVENTORY>                                    167,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,415,537
<PP&E>                                       6,621,674
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,734,443)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,887,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,503,752
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,516,200
<COMMON>                                        78,980
<OTHER-SE>                                    (27,771)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,887,678
<SALES>                                      4,917,322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,917,322
<CGS>                                          362,904
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,888,856
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,140
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             514,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,636,474)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,636,474)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,636,474)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)



</TABLE>
DRAFT 

Transformer_DRAFT_TSD_Appendix12B_version8-01-05_DOE.doc 

APPENDIX 12B. MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS 

SMALL BUSINESS INTERVIEW GUIDE 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

12B.1 MIA Interview Guide for Small Businesses 12B-1 

12B-i

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 83
DRAFT 

Transformer_DRAFT_TSD_Appendix12B_version8-01-05_DOE.doc 

Distribution Transformer 

Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis Interview Guide for Small Businesses 

1. Are you aware of the US Department of Energy’s on-going rulemaking to establish national 

minimum efficiency standards for distribution transformers?1

 Would you like to be added to 

the DOE’s email database for updates relating to this rulemaking? 

2. We are assessing the potential impacts of a potential minimum efficiency standard on small 

businesses. Is your company a small business (defined as less than 750 employees, including all 

subsidiaries and parent companies, and employees in all countries where you operate)? 

3. Does your company manufacture LV dry-type, MV dry-type, and/or liquid-immersed 

distribution transformers? How many different kVA ratings and designs do you produce 

within these three major groupings? 

4. Are you familiar with NEMA’s TP-1 / the ENERGY STAR voluntary standard? Are any of your 

products TP-1 compliant? If so, what percent of your sales does this represent? 

5. Would a TP-1 standard, mandated by the US DOE (whereby all your competitors would also 

required to meet the same standard), cause any burdens on your business? 

6. What if the US DOE required an efficiency standard higher than TP-1? Would that change 

your answer to #5? Please consider costs such as new designs, capital investment, prototype 

testing, and marketing that might be required. 

7. Are there any reasons that a small business such as yours might be at a competitive 

disadvantage relative to a larger business under mandatory efficiency standards? Please 

consider such factors as technical expertise, capital budgets, bulk purchasing power for 

material inputs (e.g., electrical steels), etc. 

8. Would the Department’s proposed test procedure impose an undue burden on small business 

(explanation required)?2

 Please consider such factors as technician time, statistical expertise, 

reporting burden, etc. 

 

1

 For information on the US DOE’s efficiency standards rulemaking for distribution transformers, visit: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformers_anopr.html 

2

 For information on the US DOE’s draft test procedure for distribution transformers, visit: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformers_snopr.html 

12B-1

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 83
#### Twyla LaWanna Sharon BOATLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, Department of Child Safety, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15038

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 21, 2017

Twyla LaWanna Sharon Boatley, Pro Se

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Twyla LaWanna Sharon Boatley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review de novo. *Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the *Rook-er-Feldman*doctrine); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Boatley’s claim under § 671(a)(15) because “42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15) neither confers an enforceable private right on its beneficiaries nor creates an implied cause of action on their behalf,” *Suter v. Artist M.,*503 U.S. 347, 364, 112 S.Ct. 1360, 118 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992).

The district court properly dismissed Boatley’s challenge to the actions of the Arizona “Superior Court Juvenile Court” for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine because her challenge constituted a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior, final state court judgment. *See Noel,*341 F.3d at 1163 (“It is a forbidden de facto appeal under *Rook-er-Feldman*when the ‘plaintiff in federal district court complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court.”).

We do not consider 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.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                                  MOSSIMO, INC.

                            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 Quarterly Report of Mossimo, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Mossimo Giannulli,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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


/s/      Mossimo Giannulli
--------------------------
         Mossimo Giannulli
         Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
         August 8, 2002
#### William Hodson, as Commissioner of Welfare of the City of New York, on the Complaint of Bertha Hoff, Respondent, *v.*William Hoff, Appellant.

Submitted October 4, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

Motion for reargument denied,' with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 291 N. Y. 518, 763.)
#### In the Matter of Edwin H. Greenleaf, Appellant, against Jonah J. Goldstein, a Judge of the Court of General Sessions of the County of New York, Respondent.

Argued October 1943;

decided November 18, 1943.

*691
      *Neile F. Towner*and *Jeremiah T. Mahoney*for appellant.

*Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Stanley H. Fuld*and *Richard G. Denser*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rjppey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA
- **2012 -**  **0216** 

### Directorate ID : **2010 -**  **SW -**  **025 -**  **AD** 

### Helicopter Model: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S
- 92A H elicopters 

### Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 20 Helicopters in the US Registry
. Reason : The action s are intended to prevent failure of the tail rotor pylon or other tail rotor components, w hich could lead to the loss of control of the helicopter.
Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 339,080 Labor per Helicopter ( 1 x $ 8 5 /work
- hour for the inspection) ( 120 x $8 5 /work
- hour for the replacement) $ 85 per inspection $10,200 Other (Explain) We are assuming 85 inspections per year on each helicopter and assuming replacement of the T/R pylon and installation of a doubler on each helicopter. Total Cost per He licopter $ 356,505/inspection and replacement Total US Fleet Cost $ $7,130,100 for the U.S. fleet. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Nicholas Faust
#### International Patent Company, Limited, Respondent, *v.*Eric W. Eweson, Appellant.

Submitted July 20, 1943;

decided October 7, 1943.

*Louis F. Huttenlocher*for motion.

*Winthrop Taylor*opposed.

Motion dismissed, without costs, on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  annual  report  of  SAMESSA  HOLDING  CORP.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  March 31,  2002,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we Andrew I. Telsey,
the Chief Executive Officer, and Darlene D. Kell, the Chief Financial Officer of
the Company,  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to the best of our knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) 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.



Dated: January 13, 2003                    s/Andrew I. Telsey
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Chief Executive Officer


Dated: January 13, 2003                    s/Darlene D. Kell
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Chief Financial Officer
















                                                                              26