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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5889 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 683
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5889

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2016

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           November 17, 2016

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1 Chalan Kanoa VLG in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, as the 
    ``Segundo T. Sablan and CNMI Fallen Military Heroes Post Office 
                              Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SEGUNDO T. SABLAN AND CNMI FALLEN MILITARY HEROES POST 
              OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1 Chalan Kanoa VLG in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Segundo T. Sablan and CNMI 
Fallen Military Heroes Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Segundo T. 
Sablan and CNMI Fallen Military Heroes Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 683

114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5889

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1 Chalan Kanoa VLG in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, as the 
    ``Segundo T. Sablan and CNMI Fallen Military Heroes Post Office 
                              Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 17, 2016

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 32.1

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 Body Central Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
January 1, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, B. Allen Weinstein, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ B. ALLEN WEINSTEIN B. Allen Weinstein President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)March 31, 2011


This
certification is being furnished solely to accompany this Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the registrant, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### Whiskey J. BADIDI, also known as Augustine Weyee, also known as Whiskey Badidi, also known as Weyee Augustine, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-60834 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 14, 2017

Whiskey J. Badidi, Pro Se

Colette Jabes Winston, Esq., Raya Jara-wan, Esq., Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Whiskey J. Badidi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order pretermitting cancellation of removal and decision ordering removal. We review the decision of the BIA and will consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA, *Shaikh v. Holder,*588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). This court reviews the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for substantial evidence. *See Efe v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002).

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Badidi was removable because he fraudulently or willfully misrepresented a material fact on his application for adjustment of status. The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s determination that Badidi was not eligible for cancellation of removal as a permanent resident because he never obtained permanent resident status and that Badidi was not eligible for cancellation of removal as a nonpermanent resident because his 2003 conviction for assault on a peace officer was a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.

Badidi’s brief fails to identify and brief any argument challenging these reasons for finding him removable and ineligible *337for relief from removal. Accordingly, these issues are deemed abandoned. *See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); *Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, Badidi’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Edith Gathoni WAITHIRA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72622

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 27, 2017

Edith Gathoni Waithira, Pro Se

Yanal H. Yousef, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Edith Gathoni Waithira, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the omission from Waithira’s declarations of the only direct threats from her alleged persecutors, and inconsistencies between her testimony and documentary evidence. *See id.*at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable when “grounded in the record and based on real problems with [petitioner’s] testimony, not mere trivialities.”); *Zamanov v. Holder,*649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (material alterations in the applicant’s account may provide substantial evidence to support an adverse credibility finding). Waith-*738ira’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. *See Zamanov,*649 F.3d at 974. We reject Waithira’s contention that the agency erred in its consideration of her corroborative evidence. *See Garcia v. Holder,*749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Waithira’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Waithira’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Waithira does not point to any evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to. Kenya. *See id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

 

**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 QuarterlyReport of Republic Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, William R. Klich, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1)    The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

 

(2)    The informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated:    November 14, 2003 

 

/s/  William R. Klich

William R. Klich 

Chief Executive Officer
#### IN RE: Mitchell J. FRANCIS, Appellant

2016-2695

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

August 15, 2017

Howard Neal Flaxman, Welsh Flaxman & Gitler LLC, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellant.

Lore A. Unt, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Joseph Matal. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Mai-Trang Due Dang, Benjamin T. Hickman, Coke Morgan Stewart.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Clevenger and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cenin Gerardo POSADA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4731

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 12, 2017

Decided: June 21, 2017

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Valencia D. Roberts, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cenin Gerardo Posada pled guilty without a plea agreement to illegal reentry by a deported felon, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012), and was sentenced to 37 months in prison. Posada appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 *772L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable, but concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Posada was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.

The district court properly calculated Posada’s Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors and the arguments of the parties, and provided a sufficiently individualized assessment based on the facts of the case. We conclude that Posada’s sentence, which falls within his Guidelines range of 37-46 months, is procedurally reasonable. Additionally, given the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is substantively reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Carter,*564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pursuant to *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that counsel inform Posada, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Posada requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for, leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Posada. 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*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7068 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for the scheduling of 

tianeptine as a schedule III substance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 22, 2024 

Mr. PANETTA (for himself and Mr. PFLUGER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for the 

scheduling of tianeptine as a schedule III substance, 

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 ‘‘Scheduling Tianeptine 

5 and Analogues Now to Defend Against Emerging Opioids 

6 Act’’ or the ‘‘STAND Against Emerging Opioids Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7068 IH

1 SEC. 2. SCHEDULING OF TIANEPTINE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 202(c) of the Controlled 

3 Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended by adding 

4 at the end of schedule III the following: 

5 ‘‘(f) Tianeptine, including its analogues, salts, iso6 mers, and salts of isomers.’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) shall become effective on the date that is 

9 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Kristel S. DEFREES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17122

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 20, 2017 *

Filed March 27, 2017

Mark Ross Caldwell, Mark Caldwell, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Erin Highland, Assistant Regional Counsel, SSA—Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and SILVERMAN. Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Kristel S. Defrees appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Defrees’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Defrees contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in giving little weight to the medical opinion of examining physician Jonathan Murphy, M.D. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s order de novo, *Molina v. Astrue,*674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

As an initial matter, contrary to De-frees’s contention that Dr. Murphy’s opinion was uncontradicted, Dr. Robert Quinones appears to have contradicted Dr. Murphy when he disagreed with Dr. Murphy’s assessment and concluded that Defrees was not disabled. Moreover, even if Dr. Murphy’s opinion is deemed uncontradicted, the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting his opinion also meet the higher “clear and convincing” standard. *See Lester v. Chater,*81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996).

First, the ALJ reasonably discounted Dr. Murphy’s opinion because his finding *557of extreme fatigue and disability was inconsistent with his own clinical findings. *See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,*359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (ALJ may reject a doctor’s opinion if it is inconsistent with that doctor’s clinical findings). Second, the ALJ reasonably found that Dr. Murphy’s exam findings were inconsistent with other medical evidence, namely Nurse Dana Rosdahl’s observations of Defrees. *See Tommasetti v. Astrue,*533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may reject a physician’s opinion that is inconsistent with medical records). Although the ALJ improperly relied on Nurse Rosdahl’s statement that Defrees had “found a doctor [Dr. Murphy] to sign off on her disability paperwork .., and he will sign off on everything,” *see Lester,*81 F.3d at 832 (ALJ “may not assume that doctors routinely lie in order to help their patients collect disability benefits”), this is harmless error because the ALJ proffered other legitimate reasons for discounting Dr. Murphy’s opinion, *see Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin.,*533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32

                        CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of deltathree, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Form 10-K") of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated:  March 29, 2006             /s/ Shimmy Zimels
                                   -----------------
                                   Shimmy Zimels, Chief Executive Officer
                                   (Principal Executive Officer and Principal
                                   Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
RECORD OF CONFERENCE CALL

DATE: May 2 6, 2011 EPA PARTICIPANTS: OAQPS/AQPD, OAQPS/SLPG , and OTAQ OUTSIDE EPA PARTICIPANTS: None SUBJECT: Presentation to management of the Regulatory Support Document final results and discussion on Proposed Rule for Determining Widespread Use of ORVR and Stage II Vapor Recovery Waiver. DISCUSSION: Meeting with upper management discussing the results of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. Results indicate a cost savings for decommissioning Stage II Vapor Recovery, yet the savings do not exceed $100 million annually. Presented Proposed rule preamble to management for review that indicates small edits and the addition of the Financial impacts section.

Copy of proposed rule preamble and draft Regulatory Support Docum ent provided.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7558

OLUDARE OGUNDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES S. GILMORE, III, Governor; MARK L. EARLEY; RONALD J. ANGELONE; GENE M. JOHNSON; DANIEL BRAXTON; NASEER MOBASHAR, Dr., Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-251-7) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 28, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Oludare Ogunde, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General; Frank Fletcher Rennie, IV, COWAN & OWEN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Oludare Ogunde appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on a number of claims but declining to dismiss a claim for deliberate indifference to aserious medical need, a claim of negligence, and a claim challenging prison regulations with respect to the number of stampsallowed on an envelope. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0529 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0529

**2002/529/EC: Commission Decision of 27 June 2002 concerning a questionnaire for Member States reports on the implementation of Directive 1999/13/EC on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations (notified under document number C(2002) 2234) **

*
Official Journal L 172 , 02/07/2002 P. 0057 - 0060 *

Commission Decision

of 27 June 2002

concerning a questionnaire for Member States reports on the implementation of Directive 1999/13/EC on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations

(notified under document number C(2002) 2234)

(2002/529/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999(1), on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations, and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 11(1) of Directive 1999/13/EC requires that reports on the implementation of the Directive be drawn up on the basis of a questionnaire or outline drafted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 6 of Council Directive 91/692/EEC(2),

(2) Member States, which implement national plans in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 1999/13/EC already are required to submit these plans to the Commission,

(3) The questionnaire or outline shall be sent to the Member States six months before the start of the period covered by the report,

(4) The first report will cover the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2004 inclusive,

(5) The Committee established in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 91/692/EEC did not deliver an opinion on these measures within the time limit laid down by the chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The questionnaire in the Annex is hereby adopted.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 June 2002.

For the Commission

Margot Wallström

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48.

ANNEX

>PIC FILE= "L_2002172EN.005802.TIF">

>PIC FILE= "L_2002172EN.005901.TIF">

>PIC FILE= "L_2002172EN.006001.TIF">