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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6661 

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to reauthorize 

rural cooperative development grants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2023 

Ms. CARAVEO (for herself and Mr. VALADAO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 

Act to reauthorize rural cooperative development grants. 

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 ‘‘Strengthening Rural 

5 Cooperatives and Communities Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF RURAL COOPERATIVE DE7 VELOPMENT GRANTS. 

8 Section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 

9 Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)) is amended— 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6661 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(C) COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT.—The 

4 term ‘cooperative development’ means activities 

5 including outreach, education, training, and 

6 technical assistance, to support the startup, ex7 pansion, or ongoing sustainability of new and 

8 existing cooperatives.’’; 

9 (2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘, and award 

10 maximum points in scoring criteria to applicants 

11 that satisfy the requirements of paragraph (5)(F),’’ 

12 before ‘‘if the plan’’; 

13 (3) in paragraph (5), by striking subparagraph 

14 (D) and inserting the following: 

15 ‘‘(D) commit to providing technical assist16 ance and other services to socially vulnerable, 

17 underserved, or distressed communities;’’; 

18 (4) in paragraph (6)(B), by striking ‘‘If the 

19 Secretary determines it to be in the best interest of 

20 the program, the’’ and inserting ‘‘The’’; 

21 (5) in paragraph (10), by adding at the end the 

22 following: ‘‘The Secretary shall analyze the data re23 sulting from the research, and include the data and 

24 the analysis in the annual report submitted by the 

25 interagency working group under paragraph (12).’’; 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6661 IH

1 (6) in paragraph (12), by adding at the end the 

2 following: ‘‘Not later than 180 days after the date 

3 of the enactment of this sentence and annually 

4 thereafter, the interagency working group shall sub5 mit to the Congress a report describing the activities 

6 carried out by the working group.’’; and 

7 (7) in paragraph (13), by striking ‘‘2014 

8 through 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2024 through 2028’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Habibollah ELAHINEJAD, Claimant-Appellant, and Various Restaurant Furniture and Goods of Iranian Origin, Defendant.

No. 16-55559

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

Jean-Claude Andre, Steven Reuben Welk, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ—Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Habibollah Elahinejad, 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 **

Habibollah Elahinejad appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in a civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. §§ 1595a(c)(l)(A) and 1595a(c)(2)(B) for goods seized from a shipment from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *United States v. $133, 420.00 in U.S. Currency,*672 F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Elahinejad failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he had a colorable interest in the property. *See id.*at 638 (“[I]n a civil forfeiture action, a claimant’s bare assertion of an ownership or possessory interest, in the absence of some other evidence, is not enough to survive a motion for summary judgment.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Elahinejad’s contention that the district court did not consider his evidence submitted in opposition to summary judgment.

Because we affirm summary judgment, we do not réach Elahinejad’s other conten*716tions on appeal. *See United States v. $15,500 in U.S. Currency,*558 F.2d 1359, 1361 (9th Cir. 1977) (when a claimant fails to establish the threshold requirement of standing, the claimant’s challenges to the merits of the forfeiture action cannot be reached).

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. 69 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 69

 To abolish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To abolish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 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 ``Nullify Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration Act'' or the ``NOSHA Act''.

SEC. 2. IN GENERAL.

    The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is repealed. The 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration is abolished.
                                 <all>
```
calif.xls

Author: Abt Associates Inc.

Created: 03/24/11

Worksheet Description

Sheet1

reports baseline impingement and entrainment

mortality losses at baseline and under

regulatory options 1 through 3.

Purpose: This is an output file for the california region including baseline

impingement and entrainment mortality losses at baseline and under

regulatory options 1 through 3.

File Info 1 of 2
Species Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

1 All forage species 0.201212 0.175999 0.198139 0.199981 17.35468 0 14.79113 15.47294 17.55589 0.175999 14.98927 15.67292

2 All harvested species 0.592765 0.518487 0.583711 0.589137 18.68535 0 15.92525 16.65933 19.27812 0.518487 16.50896 17.24847

3 American shad 0 0 0 0 2.17E-07 0 1.85E-07 1.94E-07 2.17E-07 0 1.85E-07 1.94E-07

4 Cabezon 9.88E-05 8.65E-05 9.73E-05 9.82E-05 0.059004 0 0.050288 0.052606 0.059103 8.65E-05 0.050386 0.052705

5 California halibut 0.000491 0.000429 0.000483 0.000488 0.232392 0 0.198064 0.207194 0.232883 0.000429 0.198548 0.207682

6 California scorpionfish 0.000251 0.000219 0.000247 0.000249 0 0 0 0 0.000251 0.000219 0.000247 0.000249

7 Crabs (other)0.024148 0.021122 0.023779 0.024 7.797866 0 6.646004 6.952356 7.822014 0.021122 6.669783 6.976356

8 Sea Basses 0.001795 0.00157 0.001768 0.001784 2.830883 0 2.412719 2.523935 2.832678 0.00157 2.414486 2.525719

9 Shrimp (other) 0.007815 0.006835 0.007695 0.007767 0.625946 0 0.533484 0.558075 0.63376 0.006835 0.541179 0.565842

10 Drums and croakers 0.045703 0.039976 0.045005 0.045423 0.227833 0 0.194179 0.20313 0.273536 0.039976 0.239184 0.248553

11 Dungeness crab 0.000954 0.000834 0.000939 0.000948 0.008489 0 0.007235 0.007569 0.009443 0.000834 0.008175 0.008517

12 Flounders 0.01066 0.009324 0.010497 0.010594 0.096052 0 0.081864 0.085637 0.106712 0.009324 0.092361 0.096232

13 Fish (other) 0.004224 0.003695 0.00416 0.004198 0.007752 0 0.006607 0.006911 0.011976 0.003695 0.010766 0.01111

16 Northern anchovy 0.344701 0.301508 0.339437 0.342592 0.031608 0 0.026939 0.028181 0.37631 0.301508 0.366376 0.370773

19 Rockfishes 0.016174 0.014147 0.015927 0.016075 6.3284 0 5.3936 5.642221 6.344574 0.014147 5.409527 5.658297

20 Salmon 2.39E-07 2.09E-07 2.36E-07 2.38E-07 0 0 0 0 2.39E-07 2.09E-07 2.36E-07 2.38E-07

21 Sculpins 0.014786 0.012934 0.014561 0.014696 0.425481 0 0.362631 0.379347 0.440267 0.012934 0.377192 0.394043

22 Smelts 0.005941 0.005196 0.00585 0.005904 0.000539 0 0.00046 0.000481 0.00648 0.005196 0.00631 0.006385

23 Striped bass 0 0 0 0 0.012059 0 0.010278 0.010752 0.012059 0 0.010278 0.010752

24 Sunfish 0.000104 9.13E-05 0.000103 0.000104 0.001049 0 0.000894 0.000936 0.001154 9.13E-05 0.000997 0.001039

25 Surfperches 0.114918 0.100518 0.113163 0.114215 0 0 0 0 0.114918 0.100518 0.113163 0.114215

26 Total (all species) 0.793977 0.694486 0.78185 0.789118 36.04003 0 30.71638 32.13227 36.83401 0.694486 31.49823 32.92139

Sheet1 2 of 2
#### Mary Carpink, Respondent, *v.*Fred Karpink, Defendant. Peter A. Lauria, Appellant. (2 cases)

Submitted October 4, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

*667
      *Robert L. Bobrick*for motions.

*Jesse Friedman*and *Nathaniel E. Brotver*opposed.

Motion for a stay denied, with ten dollars costs.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### The People *ex rel.*Jane Ellis, App’lt, v. The Clinton County Court *et al.,*Resp’ts.

Order reversed and motion for writ granted, without costs.
#### Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Company, Appellant, *v.*State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 25371.)

Argued May 27, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

*George H. liothlauf*for appellant.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Arthur W. Matt-son, Orrin G* Judd*and *Herbert A. Einhorn*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Eippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. William M. HEACOCK, Appellant, v. David N. MYERS, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania, and the Entire Pennsylvania Board of Parole.

No. 15885.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Submitted on Briefs Oct. 21,1966.

Decided Nov. 2, 1966.

Michael J. Rotko, Alan J. Davis, Asst. Dist. Attys., Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.

Before MARIS, MeLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The order of the district court will be affirmed on the opinion filed in that court by Judge Joseph S. Lord, III, 251 F.Supp. 773, with which we are in complete accord.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Anthony S. Loumidis, certifythat:

 

1.               I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofAmerican DG Energy Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(f) and15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

 

a.               Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b.              Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c.               Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a.               All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b.              Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  March 18, 2008 |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
|                       |   |
| /s/  Anthony S. Loumidis   |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer   |   |

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 14619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05219]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8216]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Overdrive: L.A. Constructs the Future, 1940-1990''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Overdrive: L.A. Constructs the Future, 
1940-1990,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, CA, from on or about April 9, 
2013, until on or about July 21, 2013; and the National Building 
Museum, Washington, DC, from on or about October 15, 2013, until on or 
about March 2, 2014, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues 
yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that 
Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: February 28, 2013.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-05219 Filed 3-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6812 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6812

  To authorize the Pines Foundation to establish the Fire Island AIDS 
                   Memorial, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2023

Mr. Garbarino introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Pines Foundation to establish the Fire Island AIDS 
                   Memorial, 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 ``Fire Island AIDS Memorial Act''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

    The purposes of the Act are--
            (1) to honor and remember the many residents of Fire Island 
        Pines and Cherry Grove, New York, who suffered and died from 
        the AIDS epidemic; and
            (2) to educate future generations about the AIDS epidemic 
        and the impact of the AIDS epidemic on the Fire Island 
        communities in the State of New York.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
        the National Park Service.
            (2) Foundation.--The term ``Foundation'' means the Pines 
        Foundation.
            (3) Memorial.--The term ``Memorial'' means the Fire Island 
        AIDS Memorial authorized to be established under section 4(a).

SEC. 4. FIRE ISLAND AIDS MEMORIAL.

    (a) Authorization To Establish Memorial.--The Foundation may 
establish and maintain a memorial at Fire Island National Seashore to 
honor the residents of Fire Island who died of AIDS, to be known as the 
``Fire Island AIDS Memorial''.
    (b) Use of Federal Funds Prohibited.--
            (1) In general.--Federal funds may not be used to design, 
        procure, prepare, install, or maintain the Memorial.
            (2) Non-federal funds.--The Director may accept and expend 
        contributions of non-Federal funds and resources for the 
        purposes described in paragraph (1).
    (c) Location of Memorial.--The Director may allow the Memorial to 
be established in the area of the Fire Island National Seashore located 
along the walkway between the Fire Island Pines and Cherry Grove and 
adjacent to the Carrington House.
    (d) Design of Memorial.--The final design of the Memorial shall be 
subject to the approval of the Director.
                                 <all>
```
#### Chad DUBOIS Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael Joe HANVEY, Physician’s Assistant, Mike Durfee State Prison, in his individual and official capacities; Dr. Melvin Wallinga, Chief Physician, Mike Durfee State Prison, in his individual and official capacities; Dr. Mary Carpenter, Employee of South Dakota Department of Health, in her individual and official capacities Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-3955

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Filed: September 5, 2017

Chad DuBois, Pro Se

Frank E. Geaghan, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Pierre, SD, for Defendants-Appellees

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Chad DuBois appeals after the district court1 adversely granted summary judgment on his claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He argues that the district court erred in granting defendants summary judgment, and abused its discretion in denying his motions for leave to amend his complaint, appointment of counsel, and discovery.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we *769conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing record in light most favorable to nonmovant); Vaughan v. Lacey, 49 F.3d 1344, 1346 (8th Cir. 1995) (disagreement over proper course of treatment is not actionable under Eighth Amendment). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying DuBois’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, because the proposed amendment would not have altered the analysis. See Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 818 F.3d 380, 395 (8th Cir.-2016) (denial of motion to amend complaint is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying DuBois’s motions for appointed counsel and discovery. See Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 751 F.3d 888, 895 (8th Cir. 2014) (district courts have wide discretion in handling discovery matters); Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (denial of request for appointed counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
#### Jett *v.*Jones *et al.,*trustees.

No. 13197.

May 23, 1940.

*Fraser, Irwin •& Latimer,*for plaintiff.

*J. G. Savage, G. S. Winn, J. G. Murphy,*and *F. L. Sterne,*for defendants.

Bell, Justice.

The widow of a police officer of. the City of Atlanta filed a suit against the Trustees of the Police Officers? Pension Eund, seeking the writ of mandamus to require payment of a, monthly sum alleged to be due to the plaintiff as a pensioner under an act of the General Assembly of 1925 (Ga. L. 1925, pp. 228-234). The defendants filed an answer denying the plaintiff’s right to the relief, on various grounds. At the conclusion of the evidence the court directed a verdict in favor ' of the defendants, and the plaintiff excepted. *Held:*

*(а)*It appearing from the evidence, without dispute, that for the period covered by the suit the plaintiff received under a subsequent statute (Ga. L. 1933, p. 213) more from the pension fund than the defendants could lawfully have paid to her under the act of 1925, the'court did not err in directing the verdict in favor of the defendants. On principle the case is controlled adversely to the plaintiff by the decision of this court in *Hollis*v. *Jones,*187 *Ga.*14 (199 S. E. 203).

(б) The foregoing conclusion is not altered by the fact that an actuary testified that the net balance in the hands of the defendants at the end of each year after the passage of the act of 1933 included the balance carried forward from the fund as it existed under the act of 1925. This statement of the witness clearly related only to the matter of bookkeeping through a period of years, and did not tend to rebut the testimony of the secretary of the board of trustees, based upon a statement of facts given by him, to the effect that the plaintiff “has now received under the new act more than twice as much as she would have received ■ under the old act, if she had. elected to come under it rather than to come under the new act.”

(c) Since the judgment must be affirmed for the reason indicated, no ruling is necessary as to whether the plaintiff should be held concluded by an election to claim under the act of 1933, or as to whether any other ground of defense was established by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*