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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6317 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6317

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that veterans with 
service-connected disabilities related to mental health are not barred, 
because of such disabilities, from readjustment counseling and related 
    mental health services under such title, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 15, 2016

 Mr. O'Rourke (for himself, Mr. Jones, and Ms. Judy Chu of California) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that veterans with 
service-connected disabilities related to mental health are not barred, 
because of such disabilities, from readjustment counseling and related 
    mental health services under such title, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran Mental Health Care Expansion 
Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR VETERANS WITH SERVICE-
              CONNECTED DISABILITIES RELATED TO MENTAL HEALTH.

    Section 5303 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(f) If the Secretary determines that at the time of the 
commission of an offense leading to a person's court-martial, 
discharge, or resignation, such person had a service-connected 
disability related to mental health, subsection (a) shall not apply to 
counseling and related mental health services available to such person 
under section 1712A of this title.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lennie WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-55183

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Lennie Williams, Pro Se

Michael H. Forman, Assistant Counsel, Law Offices of David J. Weiss, Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lennie Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her *354action alleging federal and state law claims arising from her employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. *McHenry v. Renne,*84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Williams’s action for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) because the allegations in the second amended complaint were vague, confusing and failed to make connections between specific allegations and individual defendants. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’); *McHenry,*84 F.3d at 1179-80 (affirming dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that “[pjrolix, confusing complaints ... impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Williams’s second amended complaint without further leave to amend — and with prejudice as to defendants Philip Browning, Jon Minato, and Dennis Veals — because Williams failed to comply with the district court’s orders instructing her to file an amended complaint comporting with Rule 8 after providing Williams with two opportunities to amend. *See Pagtalunan v. Galaza,*291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order); *Ferdik v. Bonzelet,*963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*354ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Record ofDiscussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANJZA TION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Boeing Engineering and Service 2014 to 2015 Various 

Other/ Additional Information:
From: Steckel, Andrew To: LEVIN, NANCY Subject: FW: Requested Information Date: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:01:31 AM Attachments: AO engine Retrofit analysis.docx Wood-burning1.docx Evaluation of Covers Lagoons Manure Piles for NH3.docx

________________________________________ From: Sheraz Gill [Sheraz.Gill@valleyair.org] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 4:34 PM To: Steckel, Andrew Cc: Drake, Kerry; Kay, Rynda; Perez, Idalia; Law, Nicole; Mays, Rory; Errol Villegas; Anna Myers; Sylvia Vanderspek (svanders@arb.ca.gov) Subject: Requested Information
Hello Andy,
Attached is the information requested based on the latest discussions between EPA and the District. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks

Sheraz Gill Director of Strategies and Incentives San Joaquin Valley APCD Phone: (559) 230-5908 Fax: (559) 230-6061 sheraz.gill@valleyair.org< mailto:sheraz.gill@valleyair.org >

[cid:619554722@16102009-0291]
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 29, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23

- 1076

Lower Tribunal No. F14

- 700

________________



### Edward R. Brown

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) from

the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Lody Jean, Judge.

Edward R. Brown, in proper person

.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General , for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ

, SCALES and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Chief Financial Officer**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Party City Corporation (the“Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that:          (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company    for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2005 (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and           (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/ GREGG A. MELNICK       Gregg A. Melnick *Chief Financial Officer*Dated: May 12, 2005     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely toaccompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in suchfiling.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 15483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05711]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11679]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Mel Bochner Drawings: A 
Retrospective'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad 
pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Mel Bochner Drawings: A 
Retrospective'' at the Art Institute of Chicago, in Chicago, Illinois, 
and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, 
is of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary 
exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ee9d8b8d9a878180dcdadbd7ae9d9a8f9a8bc0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c2f393f283533326e6869651c2f283d2839723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.

Stacy E. White,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2022-05711 Filed 3-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6313 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6313

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to criminalize knowingly 
  preventing the implantation of certain human embryos, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 14, 2016

 Mr. Mooney of West Virginia introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to criminalize knowingly 
  preventing the implantation of certain human embryos, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Providing Certainty for Progenitors 
Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF LIVING HUMAN EMBRYOS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 90A of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1842. Protection of living human embryos
    ``(a) Offense.--Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign 
commerce, having physical custody of a living human embryo, refuses to 
release the embryo for implantation in a willing implantee at the 
request of one of the progenitors of that embryo shall be fined under 
this title or imprisoned not more than 3 months, or both.
    ``(b) Exception for Progenitor.--A progenitor of the embryo that is 
not implanted may not be prosecuted under this section.
    ``(c) Progenitor.--The term `progenitor' means any individual who 
provides an egg or a sperm cell from which the embryo is created.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 90A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:

``Sec. 1842. Protection of living human embryos.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 1 year after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Eddie C. GOLSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden MCFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7185

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 2, 2018

Eddie C. Golson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee,

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eddie C. Golson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a *165certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 Golson has not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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*

*

 To the extent that Golson seeks to challenge the district court’s rejection of his claims asserting that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object at two points during trial, he has waived review of those issues. *See United States v. Midgette,*478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding that party must object specifically to recommendation on particular issue to preserve that issue for appeal).
Buell v. Pallito

, No. 26

- 1

- 15 Wncv ( Teachout , J., Sept. 1 , 2015 ).

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Washington Unit Docket No. 26

- 1

- 15 Wncv

WILLARD BUELL

Plaintiff

v.

ANDREW PALLITO, Commissioner,

Vermont Department of Corrections

Defendant

ENTRY

The State’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff Willard Buell is an inmate in the custody of the Vermont Department of

Corrections (DOC)

. He alleges that the DOC improperly revoked his furlough. He filed this

action seeking habeas corpus relief. The court clarified that it is a Rule 75 action. The S tate then

moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, noting that the revocation is alleged to

have occurred in September 2013 and he did not file this action until January 2015. Rule 75

requires a petitioner to seek review within 30 days of an action or within 6 months of a failure to

act. V.R.C.P. 75(c). In opposition , Mr. Buell has pointed out that the se time limit s are not

jurisdictional. The State has requested that its motion be considered under Rule 12(b)(6).

Mr. Buell’s point tha t the time limits in Rule 75 are not jurisdictional is well taken. As a

matter of law, t hey cannot be. The rules of civil procedure “shall not be construed to extend or

limit the jurisdiction of the superior courts or the venue of actions therein.” V.R. C.P. 82.

However, realizing that they are not jurisdictional does not mean that they are irrelevant. It

means generally that those time limits are subject to potential extensions under Rule 6. The

court may have additional discretion in equity in circum stances in which Rule 6 affords no relief.

In this case, however, Mr. Buell’s complaint was filed long after the expiration of both

time frames in Rule 75, long after the time for any relief contemplated by Rule 6, and he has

offered no compelling reason why the court should consider extending the time for any other

reason.

The State’s motion to dismiss is granted.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 1st day of September, 201 5

.

_____________________________ Mary Miles Teachout

Superior Judge
# Official Journal L 335/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.335.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 335 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5217 December 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.335.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 335

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5217 December 2009

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (1) | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

DIRECTIVES

*

Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
##### 



Exhibit 10.6
  
  Securities Purchase Agreement Corporation Fund Management
  Annex A Annex A




---



##### 



Sincerely, LORAL
SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS INC.By:

/s/  Richard J.
TownsendName:  Richard J.
TownsendTitle:  Executive Vice
President and ChiefFinancial Officer




---



##### 



ANNEX A
 MHR Entity
    
    Shares of Series A-1
PreferredStock
    
    Shares of Series B-1Preferred
StockMHR Capital Partners Master Account LP
    
    101
    
    2,056MHR Capital Partners (100) LP
    
    12
    
    237MHR Institutional Partners II LP
    
    50
    
    1,020MHR Institutional Partners IIA LP
    
    126
    
    2,570MHR Institutional Partners III LP
    
    591
    
    12,066Total:
    
    880
    
    17,949
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 32

JOINT RESOLUTION

Expressing the concern of the Congress regarding certain

recent remarks that unfairly and inaccurately maligned

the integrity of the Nation’s law enforcement officers.

Whereas police today are in more danger and face greater

risks than ever before, with thousands being assaulted

and hundreds being killed or injured each year;

Whereas attacks on the Nation’s law enforcement officers directly endanger the safety and well-being of all American

citizens by incapacitating and wounding those who protect all of us;

Whereas America’s law enforcement officers are increasingly

being confronted not only with physical attacks, but with

malicious, mean-spirited, and misleading character assassinations that unnecessarily malign the overwhelming majority of honest and ethical law enforcement officers while

at the same time undermining public confidence in our

country’s duly established system of criminal justice; and

Whereas persons who hold positions of special social responsibility, such as attorneys, officers of the courts, and instructors of our youth, by virtue of their position bear a

heightened responsibility not to mislead the public, and

especially not to mislead the public at the expense of
2

SJ 32 ES

those upon whom we all rely for protection: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING LAW EN4 FORCEMENT OFFICERS.

5 It is the sense of Congress that—

6 (1) this Nation owes a debt of the greatest

7 magnitude to the men and women who daily serve

8 the people of America as law enforcement officers;

9 (2) the integrity, honesty, dedication, and sac10 rifice of this Nation’s law enforcement officers con11 stitute the very bedrock of the rule of law, which dis12 tinguishes a free society from a state of tyranny;

13 and

14 (3) America’s police deserve the thanks and

15 support of the people of the United States, which

16 are hereby tendered by their elected Senators and

17 Representatives.

Passed the Senate April 7 (legislative day, April 5),

1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 32

JOINT RESOLUTION

Expressing the concern of the Congress regarding

law enforcement officers.curately maligned the integrity of the Nation’scertain recent remarks that unfairly and inac-