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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

      ( print page 13759)    
                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 5, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), AI Infrastructure Alliance, Inc. (“AIIA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: DataTalks.Club, Berlin, GERMANY; Allegro Systems Ltd., Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL; Neuro Inc., San Francisco, CA; Pachyderm, Inc., San Francisco, CA; Arize AI, Mill Valley, CA.; TerminusDB, Dublin, IRELAND; Data Science Salon, Miami, FL; MLOps Community, Flagstaff, AZ; Molecula, Austin, TX; Activeloop, Mountain View, CA; Superwise AI LTD, Tel Aviv, ISRAEL; Artefact, Paris, FRANCE; and LGN Innovations Inc., St. Asaph, IRELAND. The general area of AIIA's planned activity is to support and promote the development of standards in the fields of artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-05081 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
II

Calendar No. 319

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 869

[Report No. 104–217]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel DRAGONESSA, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 26 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Mr. CHAFEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

JANUARY 26, 1996

Reported by Mr. PRESSLER, without amendment

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

DRAGONESSA, 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,
2

•S 869 RS

1 SECTION 1. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION.

2 Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

3 Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of

4 June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App.

5 289), and section 12106 of title 46, United States Code,

6 the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of

7 documentation with appropriate endorsement for employ8 ment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

9 DRAGONESSA, United States official number 646512.

Calendar No. 319

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 869

[Report No. 104–217]

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

for other purposes.wise trade for the vessel DRAGONESSA, andpriate endorsement for employment in the coastissue a certificate of documentation with approJANUARY 26, 1996

Reported without amendment
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Josean Montalvo GERENA, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 15-2059

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

November 8, 2017

Julio César Alejandro Serrano on brief for appellant.

Thomas F. Klumper, Assistant United States Attorney, Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, and Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, on brief for appellee.

Before Howard, Chief Judge, Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Josean Montalvo Gerena (“Montalvo”) pled guilty to and was sentenced for one count of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute. By the terms of the waiver of appeal provision in the plea agreement, “[t]he defendant hereby agrees that if this Honorable Court accepts this agreement and sentences him according to its terms, conditions, and recommendations, defendant waives and surrenders his right to appeal the conviction and sentence in this case.” The agreement provided for a sentence of 87 to 125 months’ imprisonment if Montalvo was found to have a criminal history category (“CHC”) of IV or higher. The district court determined Montalvo’s CHC to be VI. After calculating the applicable guidelines range, the court sentenced him to 125 months’ imprisonment, a term consistent with the plea agreement.

Although Montalvo perfunctorily asserts that the plea agreement does not bar him from appealing on the ground that his CHC should have been lower, and that he therefore should have received a lower sentence, this bare assertion clearly contradicts the plain language of the appeal waiver provision. Because Montalvo has failed to contest the waiver of his appeal rights in any developed manner, he has waived any argument that the appeal waiver does not apply. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) (“[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.”).

Moreover, there is no reason not to enforce the appeal waiver. The scope of the waiver was clearly delineated, the district court confirmed Montalvo’s understanding of the appeal waiver in a colloquy at the change of plea hearing, and there is no miscarriage of justice in Montalvo’s run-of-the-mill claims of sentencing error. See United States v. Miliano, 480 F.3d 605, 608 (1st Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, we summarily dismiss Montalvo’s appeal. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
**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**

|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (1)    | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|   | (2)    | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as                of the                dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the                Company                for the periods presented. |

|                                                                  |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:                     December 21, 2007 |   |
|                                                                  |   |
|                                                                  |   |
| /s/                Thomas Massie                                      |   |
| Thomas                Massie                                          |   |
| *Chief                Executive Officer & Director*               |   |
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6863 

To provide that members of the Armed Forces, firefighters, and law enforcement officers shall be eligible for the Good Neighbor Next Door Sales 

Program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2023 

Mr. LAWLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To provide that members of the Armed Forces, firefighters, 

and law enforcement officers shall be eligible for the 

Good Neighbor Next Door Sales Program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 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 ‘‘Housing for Heroes 

5 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6863 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES, 

2 FIREFIGHTERS, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OF3 FICERS FOR GOOD NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR 

4 SALES PROGRAM. 

5 (a) ELIGIBILITY.—Members of the Armed Forces, 

6 firefighters, and law enforcement officers shall be eligible 

7 to purchase eligible properties under the Good Neighbor 

8 Next Door Sales Program of the Secretary of Housing and 

9 Urban Development, as provided under subsection (b). 

10 (b) ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES.—Notwithstanding sec11 tion 204 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1710), 

12 part 291 of the regulations of the Secretary of Housing 

13 and Urban Development (24 C.F.R. part 291), or any 

14 other provision of law, regulation, guideline, order, or no15 tice, in carrying out the Good Neighbor Next Door Sales 

16 Program for single-unit properties acquired by the Sec17 retary, properties shall be made available for purchase 

18 under the Program by members of the Armed Forces, by 

19 firefighters, and by law enforcement officers without re20 gard to whether or not they are located in a revitalization 

21 area. 

22 (c) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Housing and 

23 Urban Development shall amend the regulations of the 

24 Secretary as necessary to carry out subsections (a) and 

25 (b). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 on Form 10-K of Targa Resources Partners LP (the “Partnership”) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Rene R. Joyce, as Chief Executive Officer of Targa Resources GP LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his 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 Partnership.





By: /s/ Rene R. Joyce


Name: Rene R. Joyce


Title: Chief Executive Officer of Targa Resources GP LLC,


the general partner of Targa Resources Partners LP





Date: February 25, 2011





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 the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael John Luther GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4779

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 5, 2017

Decided: April 10, 2017

Brian J. Kornbrath, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sarah W. Montoro, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarks-burg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael John Luther Griffin appeals the district court’s judgment imposing a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment upon revocation of his supervised release. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred when it sentenced Griffin. We affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” *United States v. Webb,*738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” *Webb,*738 F.3d at 640 (internal quotation marks omitted). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” *United States v. Thompson,*595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010); *see*18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2012). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Griffin’s sentence is reasonable.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Griffin, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Griffin requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be *341frivolous, 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 Griffin.

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*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

DARRELL EDWARD TAYLOR, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 112 MM 2016 

 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Application for Leave to Exceed 

Word Limitations is DENIED. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a compliant Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal within 30 days.
#### Jacqueline MCFADDIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. E.A. RENFROE & COMPANY, INC., a Georgia corporation, Defendant-Appellant. *633Jacqueline McFaddin, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. E.A. Renfroe & Company, Inc., a Georgia corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-55886, No. 15-56404

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 8, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed October 17, 2017

John Joseph Manier, Ballard, Rosenberg, Golper *&*Savitt LLP, Encino, CA, Charles H. Jung, Attorney, Andrew R. Kislik, Attorney, Nassiri & Jung LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Thomas S. Ingrassia, Jenna H. Leyton-Jones, Attorney, Jennifer P, Suberlak, Esquire, Attorney, Pettit Kohn Ingrassia & Lutz PC, San Diego, CA, Kristin Bryance Metheny, Esquire, Attorney, Burr & For-man LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding

California law governs the determination of whether the parties’ arbitration agreement is unconscionable. Under California law, “the strong preference is to sever *unless*the agreement is permeated by unconscionability.” *Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P.,*203 Cal. App. 4th 771, 802, 137 Cal. Rptr.3d 773 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); *see Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co.,*846 F.3d 1251, 1272 (9th Cir. 2017). We agree with the district court that the choice of forum provision, the prevailing party provision, and the cost provision are unconscionable. Renfroe stipulated it would not enforce the choice of forum provision, and the prevailing party and cost provisions are severable. *See Fittante v. Palm Springs Motors, Inc.,*105 Cal. App. 4th 708, 727, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 659 (2003). Hence, we vacate its ruling that the entirety of the arbitration agreement is unenforceable.

The district court did not address whether the arbitration agreement’s waiver of class action claims is enforceable and applies to McFaddin’s California’s Private Attorneys General Act claim. The’ district court shall address this issue before reconsidering whether the agreement remains enforceable.

Appellant’s motion for judicial notice (dkt. 55) is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claiborne Lemar MAUPIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7103

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: May 5, 2017

Jeremy Gordon, JEREMY GORDON, PLLC, Mansfield, Texas, for Appellant. John P. Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Ronald M. Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Claiborne Lemar Maupin pleaded guilty, pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P, 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, to participating in a racketeering influenced corrupt organization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d), 1963 (2012). The parties requested a term of imprisonment of 240 months, and the district court sentenced Maupin accordingly. Maupin appeals from the district court’s June 2016 order denying his motion for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We affirm.

“We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant sentenced pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction only if the agreement “expressly uses a Guidelines sentencing range applicable to the charged offense to establish the term of imprison*225ment, and that range is subsequently lowered by the United States Sentencing Commission.” United States v. Brown, 653 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 534, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). The plea agreement here is devoid of any Sentencing Guidelines range calculation; therefore, Maupin is ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. In addition, mindful that one panel of this court “cannot overrule a decision issued by another panel,” United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 261 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted), we reject Maupin’s request to overrule Brown.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 826 

To provide for a study by the Institute of Medicine on gaps in mental 

health services and how these gaps can increase the risk of violent acts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2015 

Mr. MCKINLEY (for himself and Ms. KAPTUR) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for a study by the Institute of Medicine on 

gaps in mental health services and how these gaps can 

increase the risk of violent acts. 

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 ‘‘Examining America’s 

5 Mental Health Services Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STUDY ON GAPS IN MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES. 

7 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of Health and Human 

8 Services (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) 

9 shall enter into an agreement with the Institute of Medi10 cine (or, if the Institute declines to enter into such an arVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:11 Feb 13, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H826.IH H826

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 826 IH

1 rangement, another appropriate entity) to conduct a com2 prehensive study on— 

3 (1) gaps in mental health services, including 

4 treatment services, whether publicly or privately 

5 funded; and 

6 (2) how these gaps can increase the risk of vio7 lent acts. 

8 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.—The study under subsection 

9 (a) shall include consideration of— 

10 (1) gaps in mental health treatment services for 

11 adults and children with severe and persistent men12 tal illness; 

13 (2) barriers to receiving mental health services 

14 that result in high rates of untreated mental illness; 

15 and 

16 (3) the availability of interventions such as as17 sisted outpatient treatment designed to reach indi18 viduals with untreated severe mental illness. 

19 (c) REPORT.—The Secretary shall ensure that, not 

20 later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this 

21 Act— 

22 (1) the study under subsection (a) is completed; 

23 and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 826 IH

1 (2) a report on the findings and conclusions of 

2 such study is submitted to the Congress. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS