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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6375 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6375

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To provide for consideration of the extension under the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act of nonapplication of No-Load Mode energy 
   efficiency standards to certain security or life safety alarms or 
                         surveillance systems.

    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 ``Power And Security Systems (PASS) 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NONAPPLICATION OF NO-LOAD MODE ENERGY EFFICIENCY 
              STANDARD TO CERTAIN SECURITY OR LIFE SAFETY ALARM OR 
              SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS.

    (a) Section 325(u)(3)(D)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``2015'' and inserting ``2021''; and
            (2) by striking ``2017'' and inserting ``2023''.
    (b) Section 325(u)(3)(E) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``July 1, 2017,'' and 
        inserting ``the effective date of the amendment under 
        subparagraph (D)(ii)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(iv) Treatment in rule.--In the rule 
                        under subparagraph (D)(ii) and subsequent 
                        amendments the Secretary may treat some or all 
                        external power supplies designed to be 
                        connected to a security or life safety alarm or 
                        surveillance system as a separate product class 
                        or may extend the nonapplication under clause 
                        (ii).''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 6, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6375

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To provide for consideration of the extension under the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act of nonapplication of No-Load Mode energy 
   efficiency standards to certain security or life safety alarms or 
                         surveillance systems.
```
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000478 08-JUN-2020 08:07 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,256,509
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,892,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                    39,598
<INVENTORY>                                  1,557,182
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,013,771
<PP&E>                                       5,055,903
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,493,034
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,058,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,205,664
<BONDS>                                      2,468,563
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<COMMON>                                    17,778,872
<OTHER-SE>                                (12,394,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,058,799
<SALES>                                      4,364,697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,364,697
<CGS>                                        3,130,396
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,220,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             329,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,296,472)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,296,472)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)


</TABLE>
#### Carl HASKELL, Petitioner-Appellant v. Charles A. DANIELS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

No. 17-40035 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 9, 2018

*204Carl Haskell, Pro Se

Michael Wayne Lockhart, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorneys Office, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Respondent-Appellee

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Carl Haskell, federal prisoner # 09108-031, was convicted of conspiracy to murder a federal witness and murder of a federal witness and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He previously sought relief under 28 U.S'.C. § 2255, which was denied. Haskell now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Our review is de novo. *See Kinder v. Purdy,*222 F.3d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 2000).

As Haskell’s claims challenge the' legality of his sentence and not the manner of its execution, § 2255 and not § 2241 provides the statutory basis for his plea for relief. *Tolliver v. Dobre,*211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). He may, however, attack the validity of his conviction in a § 2241 petition if he can meet the requirements of § 2255’s savings clause. *Kinder,*222 F.3d at 212; § 2255(e). To do so, he must establish that his claims: (1) are “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense,” and (2) that the claims were “foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim[s] should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).

Haskell asserts that two *cases*—Arthur *Andersen LLP v. United States,*544 U.S. 696, 125 S.Ct. 2129, 161 L.Ed.2d 1008 (2005), and *Fowler v. United States,*563 U.S. 668, 131 S.Ct. 2045, 179 L.Ed.2d 1099 (2011) — establish that the conduct for which he was convicted was not criminal. *Arthur Andersen*predated his § 2255 motion and therefore may not be urged in a § 2241 challenge in connection with the § 2255(e) savings clause. *See Garland v. Roy,*615 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2010). As for *Fowler,*Haskell fails to demonstrate that he “may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense,” *Reyes-Requena,*243 F.3d at 904, because the offense discussed in *Fowler*is not actually Haskell’s offense of conviction.

Finally, to the extent Haskell asserts an actual innocence claim, this appears to be premised solely on his argument, rejected above, that his conduct was rendered noncriminal by the holdings in *Fowler*and *Arthur Andersen.*Haskell has not shown that the actual innocence gateway has been extended to allow a petitioner to challenge his conviction and sentence in a § 2241 petition even though he cannot meet the requirements of § 2255 savings clause. *See Pack v. Yusuff,*218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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,
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 777

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide equal time to labor

organizations to present information relating to labor organizations, and

for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 9 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

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

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide equal

time to labor organizations to present information relating to labor organizations, 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 ‘‘Labor Organizations

5 Equal Presentation Time Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. EMPLOYER AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS PRESEN7 TATIONS.

8 Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29

9 U.S.C. 158) is amended—
2

•S 777 IS

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after the subsection des2 ignation; and

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new

4 paragraphs:

5 ‘‘(2) If an employer or employer representative ad6 dresses the employees on the employer’s premises or dur7 ing work hours on issues relating to representation by a

8 labor organization, the employees shall be assured, without

9 loss of time or pay, an equal opportunity to obtain, in an

10 equivalent manner, information concerning such issues

11 from such labor organization.

12 ‘‘(3) Subject to reasonable regulation by the Board,

13 labor organizations shall have—

14 ‘‘(A) access to areas in which employees work;

15 ‘‘(B) the right to use the employer’s bulletin

16 boards, mailboxes, and other communication media;

17 and

18 ‘‘(C) the right to use the employer’s facilities

19 for the purpose of meetings with respect to the exer20 cise of the rights guaranteed by this Act.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|                                            |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- | -
|                                            |  | State or
OtherJurisdiction of Incorporation |  | PercentageOwnership |  
|Parent                                      |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|                                            |  |                                            
|Mayflower Bancorp, Inc.                     |  | Massachusetts                               |  |                     |  
|                                            |  |                                            
|Subsidiary                                  |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|                                            |  |                                            
|Mayflower Co-operative Bank                 |  | Massachusetts                               |  | 100                 | %
|                                            |  |                                            
|Subsidiaries of Mayflower Co-operative Bank |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|                                            |  |                                            
|MFLR Securities Corporation                 |  | Massachusetts                               |  | 100                 | %
|                                            |  |                                            
|Mayflower Plaza, LLC                        |  | Massachusetts                               |  | 100                 | %
Request for a memo
12/16/2011 04:49 PM

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Hi Bob, Can you send us this memo referenced on page 441 of the redline: “The Impact of Emission Averaging Time on the Stringency of an Emission

Standard”

Thanks,
Cortney
# EUR-Lex - 32004D0081 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32004D0081

**2004/81/EC: Commission Decision of 6 January 2004 amending Council Decision 79/542/EEC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorise imports of bovine animals, swine, equidae, sheep and goats, fresh meat and meat products, in particular to include certain acceding States (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 5352) **

*
Official Journal L 017 , 24/01/2004 P. 0041 - 0045 *

Commission Decision

of 6 January 2004

amending Council Decision 79/542/EEC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorise imports of bovine animals, swine, equidae, sheep and goats, fresh meat and meat products, in particular to include certain acceding States

(notified under document number C(2003) 5352)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2004/81/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries(1) as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 807/2003(2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Council Decision 79/542/EEC(3), draws up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorise imports of bovine animals, swine, equidae, sheep and goats, fresh meat and meat products.

(2) A number of acceding States have requested authorisation to export live animals, fresh meat and meat products to the Community prior to accession.

(3) A large number of veterinary missions have been carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office to assess the animal health situation in these countries.

(4) On the basis of these mission reports, of the scope of existing authorisations, and in order to harmonise the listings prior to accession, it is appropriate to extend the scope of authorisations in principle for importations into the Community from acceding States.

(5) The Annex to Decision 79/542/EEC should be amended accordingly.

(6) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Part I of the Annex to Decision 79/542/EEC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 27 January 2004.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 January 2004.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972, p. 28.

(2) OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 36.

(3) OJ L 146, 14.6.1979, p. 15, as last amended by Decision 2001/731/EC (OJ L 274, 17.10.2001, p. 22).

ANNEX

"ANNEX

Imports shall fulfil the appropriate animal and public health requirements.

PART 1

Live animals, fresh meat and meat products

>TABLE>

Special remarks:

B= Bovines (including buffalo and bison)

S/G= Sheep/goats

P= Pig

E= Equidae

C/H= Cloven-hoofed animals

X= Authorised

O= Unauthorised"
#### Candace P. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Todd H. MASTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-17305

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

November 8, 2017

Candace P. Lee, Sugar Land, TX, Pro Se.

Richard W. Osman, Bertrand, Fox, Elliot, Osman & Wenzel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

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

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Lee’s request for oral argument, set forth in her opening brief, is denied,

*588MEMORANDUM **

Candace P. Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and breach of a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lee’s excessive force claim because it was barred by the statute of limitations. *See*Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); *Jones v. Blanas,*393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including state law regarding tolling).

The district court properly dismissed Lee’s claim alleging a breach of a settlement agreement because Lee failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants breached the terms of the agreement with her. *See Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lee’s motion for reconsideration because Lee demonstrated no grounds for relief. *See School Dist. 1J v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review).

We reject as unsupported by the record Lee’s contentions regarding alleged judicial bias.

Appellees Todd H. Master, Joseph C. Howard, Jr., Howard Rome Martin *&*Rid-ley LLP, and Peggy Sue Doyle’s request for sanctions, set forth in their answering brief, is denied without prejudice. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 38 (requiring separately filed motion for damages and costs on appeal); *Wilcox v. Comm’r,*848 F.2d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 1988) (an appeal is frivolous if the results are obvious, or the arguments of error are wholly without merit).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     9
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 1999 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                   $5,666
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                              0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                              0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>             112,920
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   20,573
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     20,470
<LOANS>                                 348,714
<ALLOWANCE>                               1,557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          506,173
<DEPOSITS>                              285,700
<SHORT-TERM>                            185,965
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                       2,894
<LONG-TERM>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                     36
<OTHER-SE>                               31,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          506,173
<INTEREST-LOAN>                           6,042
<INTEREST-INVEST>                         2,387
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            159
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                          8,588
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                        2,675
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        5,136
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                     3,452
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                35
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            4
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                           2,603
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,124
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                1,124
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                704
<EPS-BASIC>                              0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.34
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                             2.88
<LOANS-NON>                                 766
<LOANS-PAST>                                  0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                              0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                             447
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                          1,503
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                 1
<RECOVERIES>                                 20
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                         1,557
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                      1,557
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       0



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar MATA-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-41504 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 19, 2017

Christopher Howard, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Laredo, TX, 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, Philip G. Gallagher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM: *

We reconsider this case on remand from the Supreme Court in light of *Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1562, 198 L.Ed.2d 22 (2017). Defen*347dant Oscar Mata-Alvarez did not object to his enhanced sentence below, so we review only for plain error. *See United States v. Wikkerink,*841 F.3d 327, 331 (5th Cir. 2016).

Under this court’s precedent, indecency with a child involving sexual contact “is a crime of violence because it entails a substantial risk that physical force may be used against the victim.” *United States v. Velazquez-Overa,*100 F.3d 418, 419 (5th Cir. 1996). Given the gravity of Mata-Alva-rez’s offense—his victim was seven-years old—the sentence of 48 months does not seriously “affect[] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” *See United States v. Peltier,*505 F.3d 389, 392 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting *United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not plainly err.

IT IS ORDERED that the appellant’s opposed motion to summarily vacate the district court judgment of sentence is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellant’s opposed motion to remand the case to the district court for resentencing in light of *Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1562, 198 L.Ed.2d 22 (2017) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellant’s opposed motion to issue the mandate forthwith is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the annual report of Teachers Pet, Inc.. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tracie Hadama, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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.





/s/ Tracie Hadama

Tracie Hadama

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

March 19, 2007