alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael L. MACIAS, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent

2016-2508

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 24, 2017

*912David Paul Clisham, Clisham & Sortor, San Francisco, CA, argued for petitioner. Also represented by Justine Liv Clisham.

Reta Emma Bezak, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by Reginald T.. Blades, Jr., Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Chad A. Readler.

(Newman, Linn, and Moore, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6918 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6918

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from restricting 
                     funding for pregnancy centers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2024

 Mrs. Fischbach (for herself, Ms. Tenney, and Mr. Smith of New Jersey) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from restricting 
                     funding for pregnancy centers.

    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 ``Supporting Pregnant and Parenting 
Women and Families Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PREGNANCY CENTERS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services may not 
finalize, implement, or enforce, with respect to expenditures for any 
pregnancy center, the modification to section 263.11 of title 45, Code 
of Federal Regulations, as described in the proposed regulation set 
forth at page 67697 of volume 88 of the Federal Register, or any 
substantially similar regulatory action.
    (b) Definition of Pregnancy Center.--In subsection (a), the term 
``pregnancy center'' means any organization, such as a pregnancy 
resource center, pregnancy help center or organization, or pregnancy 
medical center, that--
            (1) supports protecting the life of the mother and the 
        unborn child; and
            (2) offers resources and services to mothers, fathers, and 
        families, including but not limited to relationship counseling, 
        prenatal and pregnancy education, pregnancy testing, diapers, 
        baby clothes, or material supports.
                                 <all>
```
#### CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC., a Maryland Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant John Barthelow Classen, Counterclaim Defendant v. ELAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee

2017-1033

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

October 17, 2017

Joseph J. Zito, DNL ZITO, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Luiz Felipe V S C De Oliveira. '

James B. Monroe, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant/counter-claimant-appellee. Also represented by Paul William Browning.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Lourie and Taranto, 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. Jorge GONZALEZ Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3544

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 13, 2017

Filed: April 28, 2017

Amy M. Driver, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Candace L. Taylor, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Alfaro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayetteville, AR, for Defendant-Appellant

Jorge Gonzalez, Pro Se

Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Jorge Gonzalez challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed following his guilty *587plea to a drug charge. Gonzalez’s counsel moves to withdraw, and in a brief submitted under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he raises the issue that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

The district court imposed a sentence below the applicable advisory Guidelines range after discussing both mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances, and after considering sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing abuse of discretion); United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (explaining, where district court sentenced defendant below the Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

We affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District *587of Arkansas.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 172 (Friday, September 4, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22036]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0808; FRL-9932-49-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; 
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
finalize a change to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect a 
2014 EPA approval to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to 
regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Texas' Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) permitting program and to show that the SIP 
deficiency identified in a prior partial disapproval for the 1997 Ozone 
and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) has been addressed.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before October 5, 
2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be 
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following 
the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final 
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, 214-665-6645, 
young.carl@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal 
Register, the EPA is finalizing a change to the CFR without prior 
proposal because the Agency views this as noncontroversial submittal 
and anticipates no adverse comments. The change is to reflect a 2014 
EPA approval to a SIP revision to regulate GHGs in the Texas PSD 
permitting program and to show that the SIP deficiency identified in a 
prior partial disapproval has been addressed. A detailed rationale for 
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant 
adverse comments are received in response to this action no further 
activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives relevant adverse 
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public 
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on 
this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. 
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at 
this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is 
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 26, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-22036 Filed 9-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**(as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of**

**the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IDT Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Stephen R. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

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

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

Date: March 11, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDTCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
MEMORANDUM
 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

Phone call to Maryland Department of Environment

./ Vanessa Hinkle, Environmental Scientist VfL.-LA.? W -4~JC

TO: EPA Region 8 Montana Regional Haze FIP Docket 

DATE: June 11,2012 

I spoke to Justin Hsu, Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) on June 6, 2012 regarding 

the detached plume at Holcim's Hagerstown, Maryland facility. Mr. Hsu said that the 

Hagerstown kiln was using selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) and that during the winter 

months there is a visible plume. He said that Holcim was trying to find a solution for that 

problem. Mr. Hsu transferred me to Rob Hall who he said would know more about the issue. 

Mr. Hall said that SNCR was required as part of the state implementation plan under a consent 

order and that Holcim was required to reduce NOx emissions to 5.1 lb/ton clinker. He also said 

that there was a year-long study going on and that the study would probably have to be extended 

longer. I asked Mr. Hall whether he thought the Hagerstown facility's S02 emissions had any 

effect on the plume and I stated that Holcim's Trident kiln might have lower sulfur emissions. 

Mr. Hall said that if the Trident kiln was a wet kiln, that that might help scrub the sulfur. He said 

that Holcim was varying the ammonia feed rate to control the visible plume and that they may be 

able to vary the feed rate to control the plume and achieve an emission rate of 5.1 lb/ton clinker. 

Mr. Hall said that the plume forms after the opacity monitor, but the opacity could probably be 

visually read. He said that the consent order exempts Holcim from their opacity requirement. 

Mr. Hall said that it is cold in the morning when they have had the problem, but as it warms up 

in the day, there is no problem.
| (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 15 ,2011 |   | /s/ CARL WORBOYS                                                                                       |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Name: Carl WorboysTitle: President, Director and Chief Executive Officer( Principal Executive Officer) |

----
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 Quarterly Report of IDT Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Howard S. Jonas, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
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.




Date:
December 15, 2009





/s/    HOWARD S. JONASHoward
      S. Jonas
              Chief
      Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to IDT Corporation and will be
retained by IDT Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    MITCHELL GROSSINGER
ETESSMitchell Grossinger EtessChief Executive Officer,Mohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityMay 15, 2008


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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          17,351
<SECURITIES>                                    20,877
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,619
<PP&E>                                          12,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,084
<BONDS>                                          1,417
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,625
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,581
<SALES>                                         15,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,796
<CGS>                                            3,909
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,362
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (555)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (274)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (646)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (646)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 606 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 606

     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain 
 compensation received by public safety officers and their dependents 
                           from gross income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2015

Mr. Paulsen (for himself, Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania, Mr. Byrne, Mr. 
 Pascrell, and Mr. Reichert) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain 
 compensation received by public safety officers and their dependents 
                           from gross income.

    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 ``Don't Tax Our Fallen Public Safety 
Heroes Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY PUBLIC SAFETY 
              OFFICERS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS.

    Subsection (a) of section 104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4), by striking 
the period at the end of paragraph (5) and inserting ``; and'', and by 
inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
            ``(6) amounts received pursuant to--
                    ``(A) section 1201 of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
                Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796); or
                    ``(B) a program established under the laws of any 
                State which provides monetary compensation for 
                surviving dependents of a public safety officer who has 
                died as the direct and proximate result of a personal 
                injury sustained in the line of duty,
        except that subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any amounts 
        that would have been payable if death of the public safety 
        officer had occurred other than as the direct and proximate 
        result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty.''.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Tony Ricci, Chief Financial Officer of Keegan Resources Inc. (the Company) do 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 my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.





Date: September 25, 2007



/s/  Tony Ricci

Tony Ricci, Chief Financial Officer













#
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Franklin Alberto Mendez ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3648

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 10, 2017

Filed: May 15, 2017

Melisa K. Zaehringer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Franklin Alberto Mendez Alvarado, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Franklin Alberto Mendez Alvarado pled guilty to illegally re-entering the United States as a previously deported alien, subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). His counsel has moved to -withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging his sen-fence, suggesting that an error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(B) occurred during the change-of-plea hearing, and asserting that the district court1 did not use the correct Guidelines Manual for sentencing purposes. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Upon careful review, this court concludes that the issues raised by counsel lack merit *See United States v. Dominguez Benitez,*542 U.S. 74, 76, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) (plain-error standard applies where Rule 11 error was not preserved by timely objection; defendant must show that, but for such error, he would not have entered plea); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11 (court shall use Guidelines Manual in effect on date defendant is sentenced, unless that edition violates ex post facto elapse). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
­2

0 2 4 6 8Heat Flow (W/g) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 

### Temperature (°C) 

## DSC

Exo Down Universal V4.3A TA Instruments