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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 688 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 688

To reduce the rate of pay for Members of Congress by 10 percent and to 
            eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2015

Mr. Loebsack (for himself, Mrs. Bustos, and Mr. Ashford) introduced the 
     following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
   Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and 
 Government Reform, 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 reduce the rate of pay for Members of Congress by 10 percent and to 
            eliminate automatic pay adjustments for Members.

    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 ``Congressional Halt in Pay Increases 
and Cut Congressional Pay Act''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN PAY.

    (a) In General.--Section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) is amended to read as follows:
    ``Sec. 601. (a) Effective as of the beginning of the first 
applicable pay period commencing after the date on which is held the 
next regularly scheduled general election for Federal office following 
the date of the enactment of the Congressional Halt in Pay Increases 
and Cut Congressional Pay Act, the annual rate of pay for--
            ``(1) each Senator, Member of the House of Representatives, 
        and Delegate to the House of Representatives, and the Resident 
        Commissioner from Puerto Rico,
            ``(2) the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority 
        leader and the minority leader of the Senate, and the majority 
        leader and the minority leader of the House of Representatives, 
        and
            ``(3) the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
shall be equal to the annual rate of pay for that position as of the 
date on which such general election is held, reduced by 10 percent.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect as of the 
date on which is held the next regularly scheduled general election for 
Federal office following the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dawantaye BOSWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7606

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Dawantaye Boswell, Appellant Pro Se.

Shawn Michael Adkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Randolph John Bernard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dawantaye Boswell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Boswell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Boswell’s motions for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
UAS Type DJI Phantom 2+ 

UAS Serial # PH646044721V3.0

Flight # Mission # Locations Date Time Pilot Observer Max Alt Max Distance Max Speed Distance Traveled Flight Duriation Maintenance Required
#### Hattie H. Farrell, Adm’rx, Resp’t', v. Arthur „. Horgan *et al.,*App’lts.

Appeal by defendants from judgment entered on verdict of jury and from order denying mo'ion for a new trial made upon the judge’s minutes.

*Edward W. S. Johnston,*for app’lts; *Alfred Steckler*and *Charles Steckler,*for resp’t.

Per Curiam.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 820

To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the increase in the

retired pay multiplier for service in the uniformed services in excess

of 20 years by members first entering the uniformed services after

July 31, 1986.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 18 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Mr. KERREY (for himself and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the

increase in the retired pay multiplier for service in the

uniformed services in excess of 20 years by members

first entering the uniformed services after July 31, 1986.

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 ‘‘Uniformed Services

5 Retirement Economy Act of 1995’’.
2

•S 820 IS

1 SEC. 2. RETIRED PAY MULTIPLIER FOR PERSONS ENTER2 ING THE UNIFORMED SERVICES AFTER JULY

3 31, 1986.

4 (a) CONSTANT 2 PERCENT PER YEAR MULTI5 PLIER.—Section 1409(b)(2) of title 10, United States

6 Code, is amended to read as follows:

7 ‘‘(2) MEMBERS ENTERING AFTER JULY 31,

8 1986.—Subject to paragraph (3), in the case of a

9 member who first became a member of a uniformed

10 service after July 31, 1986, the percentage to be

11 used under subsection (a) is the product (stated as

12 a percentage) of—

13 ‘‘(A) 2, and

14 ‘‘(B) the member’s years of creditable serv15 ice (as defined in subsection (c)).’’.

16 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section

17 1409(b)(1) of such title is amended by striking out ‘‘(1)

18 GENERAL RULE.—Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3),’’

19 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘(1) MEMBERS ENTERING

20 BEFORE AUGUST 1, 1986.—Subject to paragraph (3), in

21 the case of a member who first became a member of a

22 uniformed service before August 1, 1986,’’.

23 (2) Section 1410 of title 10, United States Code, is

24 amended by striking out ‘‘on that date if—’’ and all that

25 follows and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ‘‘on that

26 date if increases in the retired pay of the member or
3

•S 820 IS

1 former member under section 1401a(b) of this title had

2 been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of that sec3 tion (rather than under paragraph (3) of that section).’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James H. Mackaness, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, certify that the Quarterly Report of IRIDEX Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 3, 2010 (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
(ii) that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IRIDEX Corporation.



|                  |  |                                             
|----------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: May 6, 2010
|                  | 
|By:               |  | /s/ JAMES H. MACKANESS                      
|Name:             |  | James H. Mackaness                          
|Title:            |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                  |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
(see attached scope of accreditation for field(s) of inspection, including type, range, methods or procedures)Print Date: 03/28/2011Page 1 of 2This is to signify thatCERTIFICATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC4257 BARGER DRIVE #134EUGENE, OREGON 97402Inspection Agency AA-732Type A (Third-Party) Inspection Bodyhas met the requirements of the IAS Accreditation Criteria forInspection Agencies (AC98), hasdemonstrated compliance withISO/IEC Standard 17020,General criteria for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection, and has beenaccredited, commencing March 17, 2011, to provide inspectionservices in the approved scope of accreditation.Patrick V. McCullen C. P. Ramani, P.E.Vice President PresidentCertification Services International, LLC AA-732Type A (Third-Party) Inspection BodyMarch 17, 2011Commencement Date C. P. Ramani, P.E.PresidentPrint Date: 03/28/2011Page 2 of 2Certification Services International, LLC Ben Vaughn4257 Barger Dr. #134PresidentEugene, OR 97402(541) 995-0020FIELDS OFINSPECTIONSTYPE AND RANGE OFINSPECTIONSINSPECTION METHODSAND PROCEDURESWood-based building products- Formaldehyde emissionsIn-plant California Code of Regulation, Section 93120 Title 17;Certification Services International LLC., FormaldehydeEmission Certification Program, Revision D-2, Dated11/26/10Quality Program Audit Work Sheet QP-AW dated3/8/2011
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tonias M. OVERTON Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4221

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 10, 2017

Filed: May 19, 2017

Justin G. Davids, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Tonias M. Overton, Pro Se

*508Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Tonias Overton directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief questioning the reasonableness of Overton’s revocation sentence.

After careful review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Overton. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110-11 (8th Cir. 2008) (this court reviews entire sentencing record, not merely district court’s statements at hearing).

We grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
EXHIBIT
23.1


CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-152116 on Form S-8 and 333-144749 on Form S-8 of our reports dated
March 25, 2009 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of AICPA Emerging Issues Task
Force Issue No. 06-4 "Accounting for Deferred Compensation and Postretirement
Benefit Aspects of Endorsement Split-Dollar Life Insurance Arrangements"
on January 1, 2008 and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158,
"Employer's Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement
Plans" on December 31, 2006), relating to the consolidated financial statements
of Beneficial Mutual Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of
Beneficial Mutual Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries' internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Beneficial
Mutual Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.




/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP




Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania


March 25,
2009
#### Daniel ACEDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Francis ABALOS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56534

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed June 30, 2017

Daniel Acedo, Pro Se

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Daniel Acedo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Acedo’s action because Acedo failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual injury due to defendants’ alleged conduct. *See Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 348-349, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (to state an access-to-courts claim, a prisoner must allege “actual injury”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Acedo’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion because Acedo failed to establish any basis for relief. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)).

Acedo’s request for judicial notice (Dkt. Entry No. 14-2) is denied as unnecessary to the extent that it requests judicial notice of documents filed in the district court. To the extent Acedo requests judicial notice of documents that were not filed in the district court, we do not consider evidence introduced for the first time on appeal. *See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am.,*842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 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. Jose SOTO-ORTIZ, also known as Epitacio Valenciana, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41043 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 14, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Kayla R. Gassmann, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Soto-Ortiz appeals the 57-month within-guidelines sentence imposed in connection with his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. Soto-Ortiz argues that the district court plainly erred in characterizing his prior convictions for Texas murder and aggravated assault as crimes of violence within the Guidelines, resulting in an additional criminal history point under U.S.S.G. § 4Al,l(e). He contends that the residual clause of the former version of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) (2015), is unconstitutional in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), where the Supreme Court held that nearly identical language in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague. All of Soto-Ortiz’s arguments are foreclosed by *United States v. Jeffries,*822 F.3d 192, 193-94 (5th Cir.), *reh’g denied,*829 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1328, 197 L.Ed.2d 524 (2017) and *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot.

*

 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.
Order entered February 7 , 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 22 - 01002 - CR EX PARTE: JEREMY MICHAEL LIEBBE On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Kaufman Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19 - 90392 - CC2 - M

O RDER The State’s second motion for extension of time to file brief is GRANTED , and we ORDER the brief filed on or before MARCH 6, 2023

. /s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 682 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 682

To provide for the certification by the Federal Aviation Administration 
   of airports serving commuter air carriers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 1995

   Mr. Ford introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the certification by the Federal Aviation Administration 
   of airports serving commuter air carriers, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 44706(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is amended to 
read as follows:
            ``(1) that serves any scheduled passenger operation of an 
        air carrier aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats 
        or any unscheduled passenger operation of an air carrier 
        aircraft designed for more than 30 passenger seats;''.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 32001R1527 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R1527

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1527/2001 of 26 July 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 825/2001 laying down special measures derogating from Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 and Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 as regards products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty **

*
Official Journal L 202 , 27/07/2001 P. 0008 - 0008 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1527/2001

of 26 July 2001

amending Regulation (EC) No 825/2001 laying down special measures derogating from Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 and Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 as regards products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 of 6 December 1993 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2580/2000(2), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) It is useful that special measures as foreseen in Commission Regulation (EC) No 825/2001 of 27 April 2001 laying down special measures derogating from Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 and Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 as regards products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty(3) be brought in line with the common rules for the fixing in advance of refund rates.

(2) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in line with the opinion of the Management Committee on horizontal questions concerning trade in processed agricultural products not listed in Annex I,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 825/2001, the following subparagraph is added: "By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000, where the system of advance fixing of the refund rate is applied, the rate in force on the day on which the application for advance fixing is lodged shall apply to goods exported during the extended period of validity of the refund certificate."

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply to all extended certificates.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 July 2001.

For the Commission

Erkki Liikanen

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 318, 20.12.1993, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 298, 25.11.2000, p. 5.

(3) OJ L 120, 28.4.2001, p. 5.
# EUR-Lex - 32003B0891 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003B0891

**2003/891/EC: European Parliament Decision of 6 November 2003 on the discharge to the Director of the European Environment Agency in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2001 **

*
Official Journal L 333 , 20/12/2003 P. 0071 - 0071 *

European Parliament Decision

of 6 November 2003

on the discharge to the Director of the European Environment Agency in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2001

(2003/891/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

- having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the financial statements of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2001, together with the Agency's replies(1) (C5-0098/2003),

- having regard to the Council's recommendation of 7 March 2003 (C5-0099/2003),

- having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(2) and in particular Article 185 thereof,

- having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 23 December 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(3) and, in particular, Article 94 thereof,

- having regard to Rule 93a and Annex V of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to its decision of 8 April 2003 on the postponement of the decision concerning discharge and its resolution containing the comments accompanying that decision(4),

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A5-0360/2003),

1. Gives discharge to the Director of the European Environment Agency, in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2001;

2. Records its comments in the accompanying resolution;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the accompanying resolution to the Director of the European Environment Agency, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors and to have them published in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

The Secretary-General

Julian Priestley

The President

Pat Cox

(1) OJ C 326, 27.12.2002, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

(4) OJ L 148, 16.6.2003, pp. 16 and 18.