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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6734 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to finalize, implement, or enforce 

proposed ATF Rule 2022R–17, entitled ‘‘Definition of ‘Engaged in the 

Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. CLYDE (for himself, Mr. ALFORD, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. BOST, Mr. SMITH

of Nebraska, Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. WEBER

of Texas, Mr. OGLES, Mr. DUNN of Florida, Mr. BEAN of Florida, Mr. 

FEENSTRA, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. GOODEN of Texas, Mr. 

BURLISON, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. LATURNER, Mr. ISSA, Mr. WESTERMAN, 

Mr. ROSE, Mr. POSEY, Mr. CRANE, Mr. HUDSON, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Mr. 

RESCHENTHALER, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. LOUDERMILK, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. 

ROSENDALE, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. PERRY, Mr. ROY, Mr. 

WALBERG, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, Mr. 

FINSTAD, Mrs. CAMMACK, Mrs. LESKO, Mr. KELLY of Mississippi, Mr. 

NEHLS, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mrs. BICE, Mrs. HINSON, Mr. 

PALMER, Mr. BACON, Mr. TIMMONS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. 

YAKYM, Mr. BURGESS, Ms. GREENE of Georgia, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. 

MCCORMICK, Mr. FLEISCHMANN, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Ms. 

HAGEMAN, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. BABIN, Mr. EZELL, Mr. CARTER of 

Texas, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, 

Mr. FRY, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Ms. BOEBERT, Mr. 

LANGWORTHY, Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas, Mr. BERGMAN, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. 

WALTZ, Mr. KUSTOFF, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mr. 

ADERHOLT, Mr. DAVIDSON, Mr. HILL, Mr. HERN, Mr. MORAN, Mr. 

STEUBE, Mr. BRECHEEN, Mr. LATTA, Ms. VAN DUYNE, Mr. AUSTIN

SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. MOONEY, Mrs. LUNA, Mr. VAN DREW, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, 

Mr. ALLEN, Mr. SELF, Mr. STAUBER, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. ARRINGTON, 

Mr. BURCHETT, and Mr. CARL) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6734 IH

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to finalize, implement, 

or enforce proposed ATF Rule 2022R–17, entitled ‘‘Definition of ‘Engaged in the Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms’’. 

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 ‘‘Stopping Unconstitu5 tional Background Checks Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO FI7 NALIZE, IMPLEMENT, OR ENFORCE PRO8 POSED ATF RULE 2022R–17, ENTITLED ‘‘DEFI9 NITION OF ‘ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS’ AS A 

10 DEALER IN FIREARMS’’. 

11 No Federal funds may be used to finalize, implement, 

12 or enforce the rule proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, 

13 Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, entitled ‘‘Definition of 

14 ‘Engaged in the Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms’’, in 

15 the notice of proposed rulemaking 2022R–17, signed by 

16 the Attorney General on August 30, 2023, or any substan17 tially similar rule. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit








Exhibit 10(e)(iv)
SOUTH JERSEY INDUSTRIES, INC.
 
SCHEDULE OF OFFICER AGREEMENTS
 
Pursuant to Rule 12b-31, the following sets forth the material details which differ in the Officer Change in Control Agreements, the form of which is filed herewith as Exhibit 10(e)(iii).
 
	
					
	Name
	Capacities in Which Served
	Effective
 Date
 of
Agreement
	Severance
Multiple of
Base Salary
and Average
Annual Bonus
	Duration of Continued Medical
Insurance

	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	Michael J. Renna
	Director, President and Chief Executive Officer, South Jersey Industries, Inc.
	1/1/19
	3X
	3 years

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Cielo Hernandez
	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, South Jersey Industries, Inc.
	1/14/19
	2X
	2 years

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Stephen H. Clark
	Executive Vice President, South Jersey Industries, Inc. and President and Chief Operating Officer, South Jersey Energy Solutions, LLC
	1/1/19
	2X
	2 years

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Kathleen A. McEndy
	Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer, South Jersey Industries, Inc.
	1/1/19
	2X
	2 years

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Kenneth A. Lynch
	Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting & Risk Officer, South Jersey Industries, Inc.
	1/1/19
	2X
	2 years

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	David Robbins, Jr.
	Senior Vice President, South Jersey Industries, Inc. and President, SJI Utilities, Inc. 
	1/1/19
	2X
	2 years

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Steven R. Cocchi
	Chief Strategy and Development Officer and Senior Vice President, Strategy and Growth, South Jersey Industries, Inc.
	1/1/19
	2X
	2 years

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Melissa Orsen
	Senior Vice President & General Counsel, South Jersey Industries, Inc.
	1/1/19
	2X
	2 years
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrique ROOK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-17515 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(July 26, 2017)

John Shantanu Ghose, John Andrew Horn, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Molly Hiland Parmer, W. Matthew Dodge, Stephanie A. Kearns, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *See United States v. Bushert,*997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily).
---

Exhibit 99.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Peter Breese, Chief Executive Officer of Asanko Gold Inc.
(the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the Annual Report) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                 



| | By:    | /s/
      Peter Breese       
| | ------ | -----------------------------
| |        |                              
| | Name:  | Peter Breese                 
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer      
| |        | (Principal Executive Officer)
| |        |                              
| |        |                              
| | Date:  | March 15, 2017               

---
#### Jose APOLLO, Sr., Appellant v. Jennifer Ann DI TORO, Appellee

No. 17-7049

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: August 24, 2017

*524Jose Apollo, Sr„ Washington, DC, pro se

BEFORE: Millett and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). ^ 1⁄8

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed January 31, 2017, be affirmed for the reasons stated in its memorandum opinion filed the same day. Notwithstanding appellant’s accusations, both the appellee and the district court judge, who dismissed the complaint on absolute immunity grounds, were acting in their respective judicial capacities. Accordingly, the action was properly dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not' be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Form of First Amendment to Voting Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO VOTING AGREEMENT 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this
     day of May 2012, by and among Dialogic Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and
                   (the “Stockholder”). 
 WITNESSETH 
 WHEREAS, the Company and
the Stockholder are parties to a Voting Agreement dated March 22, 2012 (“Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Stockholder wish to amend the Agreement to extend the termination date from
June 30, 2012 to August 15, 2012 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these
premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  

	 	1)	Section 2.1(b) of the Agreement is revised to change the date set out therein from June 30, 2012 to August 15, 2012. 


 

	 	2)	This Amendment, and the rights of the parties hereto, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware as such laws apply to
agreements among Delaware residents made and to be performed entirely within the State of Delaware. 

  

	 	3)	This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
agreement. 

  

	 	4)	Except as amended herein, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect. 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	
	Dialogic Inc.:
	By:	 	  

	
	 Name: Anthony Housefather

	
	 Title: EVP and General Counsel

	
	STOCKHOLDER:
	
	By:                          
                                         
                    
	
	Name:                         
                                         
                
	
	Title:
# Memorandum

T o: GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

From: JONATHAN MELCHI, HEATING, AIR

- CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION
DISTRIBUTORS INTERNATIONAL (HARDI)

Date: 1/12/2012
Subject: EX PARTE COMMUNICATION MEMO

DOE ATTENDEES : Ashley Armstrong, John Cymbalsky, David Case, Laura Barhydt HARDI ATTENDEES : Talbot Gee, Jonathan Melchi

AREAS OF DISCUSSION: DOE Framework Document and Stakeholder Meeting regarding the Enforcement of the updated Energy Conservation Standards for Air C onditioners, Furnaces and Heat Pumps. The meeting took place on Thursday January 5 th , 2012 from 2pm to 3

- pm. The following topics were discussed.
1.) Sell

- Through . HARDI asked for clarification on the DOE’s notation on the Framework Document that indicated th e effective date for regionalized standards would carry an installation ban and no sell

through would be allowed. This differs from the published rule, which indicated that the effective dates would carry manufacturing and importation bans. HARDI reiterate d its concern with the cost of stranded inventory that an installation ban would bring.
2.) DOE Enforcement Authority

. HARDI expressed concern with the DOE Framework document, since the document proposes enforcement r esponsibility upon d istributors. HARDI cit ed existing law, which does not name distributors as liable entities in the enforcement of energy efficiency standards.
3.) Three DOE Framework Proposals

. HARDI walked through each of the enforcement scenarios as provided in the Framework Document. HARDI main tained that proposed serial tracking was extremely burdensome as not all distributors track inventory by serial numbers and those that do, utilize various methods of doing so (i.e. handwritten, manual data entry, scanning) . HARDI also communicated the dev iation from standard and established business practices that the proposals would bring.
4.) Waiver Provision

. HARDI detailed its concerns with the proposed waiver provision. HARDI asked if DOE has considered providing a waiver for both furnaces and air

- conditioners in locations with regionalized standards. HARDI expressed concern that the lack of sell through wou ld force distributors to attempt to liquidate inventory, yet a waiver provision would force them to maintain stock. HARDI stated that distributors like to stock product or not stock product, and that a waiver provision leaves distributors in a precarious m iddle ground.
5.) Severing Enforcement Rulemaking

. HARDI asked that DOE not divide enforcement rulemakings for furnaces and air

- conditioners as discussed at the Stakeholder meeting.
#### Ronald Satish EMRIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, (DMV); Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration, (MVA); U.S. Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1475

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 30, 2017

Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

*708Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint for failure to state a claim and improper venue.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. *See Buchanan v. Manley,*145 F.3d 386, 388-89 (D.C. Cir. 1998). It is apparent from Emrit’s complaint that no conceivable basis exists for venue in the District of Maryland. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) (2012) (describing venue and residency requirements); *O’Neill v. Battisti,*472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972) (describing “residency” of public official). Moreover, we are satisfied that the interests of justice did not require transferring, rather than dismissing, the action. *See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (recognizing that, to survive dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (internal quotation marks omitted)); *Simpkins v. D.C. Gov’t,*108 F.3d 366, 370 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (recognizing that district court may dismiss action, despite improper venue, where complaint patently failed to state viable claim).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 Although Emrit's notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after the district court’s dismissal order, his appeal is timely because the court’s order explains in full its reasons for dismissing the complaint and therefore is not a separate judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). *See Hughes v. Halifax Cnty. Sch. Bd.,*823 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1987). The order is deemed "entered,” for purposes of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a),- when "150 days have run from entry of the order in the civil docket.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii). As Emrit’s notice of appeal was filed within that 150-day period, we have jurisdiction to consider his appeal. *See Quinn v. Haynes,*234 F.3d 837, 843 (4th Cir. 2000).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 675 

To amend the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 

to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from granting a 

license or United States market access for a non-geostationary orbit 

satellite system if the license or grant of market access would be held 

or controlled by an entity that produces or provides any covered communications equipment or service or an affiliate of such an entity, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2023 

Mr. PALLONE (for himself and Mrs. RODGERS of Washington) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks 

Act of 2019 to prohibit the Federal Communications 

Commission from granting a license or United States 

market access for a non-geostationary orbit satellite system if the license or grant of market access would be 

held or controlled by an entity that produces or provides 

any covered communications equipment or service or an 

affiliate of such an entity, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 675 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Secure Space Act of 

3 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON GRANT OF CERTAIN SATELLITE 

5 LICENSES OR UNITED STATES MARKET AC6 CESS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secure and Trusted Commu8 nications Networks Act of 2019 (47 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) 

9 is amended— 

10 (1) by redesignating sections 10 and 11 as sec11 tions 11 and 12, respectively; and 

12 (2) by inserting after section 9 the following: 

13 ‘‘SEC. 10. PROHIBITION ON GRANT OF CERTAIN SATELLITE 

14 LICENSES OR UNITED STATES MARKET AC15 CESS. 

16 ‘‘The Commission may not grant a license for, or a 

17 petition for a declaratory ruling to access the United 

18 States market using, a non-geostationary orbit satellite 

19 system (as defined in section 25.103 of title 47, Code of 

20 Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation)), if such 

21 license or grant of market access would be held or con22 trolled by— 

23 ‘‘(1) an entity that produces or provides any 

24 covered communications equipment or service; or 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 675 IH

1 ‘‘(2) an affiliate (as defined in section 3 of the 

2 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153)) of an 

3 entity described in paragraph (1).’’. 

4 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Section 10 of the Secure and 

5 Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, as added 

6 by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to the grant 

7 of a license or petition on or after the date of the enact8 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8181

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. LORENZA S. HILL, a/k/a Squeezy, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00302-REP-1)

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenza S. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lorenza S. Hill appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction

of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. United States v. Hill , No. 3:05-cr-00302-REP-1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 19, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Gregory Allen FRANKLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; Katherine L. Myrick, DEA, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55570

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 21, 2017

Gregory Allen Franklin, Pro Se

Jason K. Axe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

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 **

Gregory Allen Franklin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action arising out of his request for investigative information related to himself and decedent Grover Tinner. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin.,*836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We affirm.

*543The district court properly granted summary judgment because Franklin failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive documents or whether defendants did not establish that the redactions on the documents fell within a FOIA exemption category. *See Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*797 F.3d 759, 770-71 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth requirements for demonstrating adequacy of search for documents); *Bowen v. Food & Drug Admin.,*925 F.2d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 1991) (reasonably detailed affidavits are sufficient to establish that documents are within FOIA exemption category). Contrary to Franklin’s contention, the district court did conduct an *in camera*review of the unredact-ed documents.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion for a protective order, precluding Franklin from conducting discovery absent leave of court. *See Lane v. Dep’t of Interior,*523 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A district court has wide latitude in controlling discovery, and its rulings will not be overturned in absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### E. & H. T. Anthony, Resp’ts, *v.*Edwin Wiley, App’lt.

Judgment affirmed by default.