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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 135 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 135

  To authorize production of documents, testimony by a former Senate 
         employee, and representation by Senate Legal Counsel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 15 (legislative day, June 5), 1995

    Mr. Dole (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To authorize production of documents, testimony by a former Senate 
         employee, and representation by Senate Legal Counsel.
Whereas the plaintiffs in Schneider v. Schaaf, Civ. No. 95-C-1056 and Schneider 
        v. Messer, Civ. No. 93-C-124, civil actions pending in State court in 
        North Dakota have sought the deposition testimony of Ross Keys, a former 
        Senate employee who worked for Senator Kent Conrad and documents from 
        Senator Conrad's office;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be 
        taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take 
        such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to 
        requests for testimony made to them in their official capacities: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Ross Keys is authorized to produce records and 
provide testimony in the cases of Schneider v. Schaaf and Schneider v. 
Messer, except concerning matters for which a privilege should be 
asserted.
    Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Ross 
Keys in connection with the testimony authorized by section 1 of this 
resolution.
                                 <all>
```
#### John R. ZSIGRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY COMMISSION OF LEWIS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA; Lewis County Sheriff's Department; James H. McAtee, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1292

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 21, 2017

Decided: January 12, 2018

William B. Summers, SUMMERS *&*ASSOCIATES, Parkersburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sylvester A. Hill, Jr., CI-PRIANI & WERNER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John R. Zsigray appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.

Zsigray alleged in his complaint that, as he was leaving a courthouse in Lewis County, West Virginia, Defendant McAtee, a security officer, grabbed him and shoved him against a wall. Zsigray asserted that McAtee’s actions were unjustified and violated both his federal constitutional rights *179and state law. Notably, Zsigray stated several times in his complaint that a video recording of the incident supported his version of the facts.

The district court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reviewed the video and described it in considerable detail in its order. The court observed that, contrary to the allegations in the complaint, Zsigray and McAtee had no “semblance of a physical altercation.” The court’s conclusion that McAtee failed to state a claim for relief was based primarily on its review of the video.

Zsigray contends on appeal that the district court erred by considering the video when it ruled on the motion to dismiss. However, “in reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we are not confined to the four corners of the complaint.” *United States ex rel. Oberg v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency,*745 F.3d 131, 136 (4th Cir. 2014). “We may also consider [materials] incorporated into the complaint by reference ... so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review de novo a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). *Woods v. City of Greensboro,*855 F.3d 639, 646 (4th Cir. 2017).

We hold that the district court’s consideration of the video was permissible. The video, to which Zsigray referred several times to authenticate his version of events, was integral to the complaint. Further, the authenticity of the video was not in question.

We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1041
JEFFREY KENT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AMERICAN TENANT SCREEN, INCORPORATED, t/a ATS; DANIEL STERLING, Representative; TIMOTHY O'SULLIVAN, Representative, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-2838-S) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 26, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Kent, Appellant Pro Se. Leonard C. Redmond, III, REDMOND, BURGIN & GUTIERREZ, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a-t (1994), and a state law claim of defamation. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kent v. American Tenant Screen, Inc. , No. CA-97-2838-S (D. Md. Dec. 9, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 175 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
S. RES. 175

 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the recent elections in 
                               Hong Kong.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 20 (legislative day, September 5), 1995

Mr. Pressler submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the recent elections in 
                               Hong Kong.
Whereas the right to a fully elected legislature in Hong Kong is guaranteed by 
        the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong;
Whereas on September 17, 1995, the people of Hong Kong demonstrated their 
        commitment to democracy by freely expressing their right to vote in the 
        Legislative Council elections; and
Whereas the voters of Hong Kong have overwhelmingly expressed their desire for 
        the establishment of a fully democratic government: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) the people of Hong Kong are to be congratulated for 
        exercising their right to vote on September 17, 1995;
            (2) the People's Republic of China should respect the clear 
        will of the people of Hong Kong to have a fully democratic 
        government; and
            (3) the Chinese government should enter into a dialogue 
        with the democratically elected representatives of the Hong 
        Kong people.
                                 <all>
```
#### Danilo A. PINEDA, a/k/a Pineda Danilo, a/k/a Danilo Pineida, a/k/a John Doe, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III United States Attorney General, Respondent.

16-2563

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

February 13, 2018

FOR PETITIONER: Stacy Taeuber, Maria Navarro, for Seymour James, Attorney-in-Chief, The Legal Aid Society, New York, New York.

FOR RESPONDENT: Rachel L. Browning, Keith I. McManus, for Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

PRESENT: Guido Calabresi, José A. Cabranes, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., Circuit Judges

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Danilo Pineda (“petitioner” or “Pineda”) seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in which the Board dismissed his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of his request for a continuance of removal proceedings to await the adjudication of his U visa application by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the underlying procedural history, and the issues presented on appeal. .

We have jurisdiction to review decisions by the BIA to grant or deny continuances. *Sanusi v. Gonzales,*445 F.3d 193, 198-99 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We review the BIA’s decision to deny a continuance for abuse of discretion. *Id.*at 199.

USCIS, which possesses sole authority to review U visa applications, denied Pine-da’s applications for a U visa and a concurrent waiver of inadmissibility1 on January 30, 2017. Pineda argues that this decision does not render his petition moot because his motion to reopen his U visa application *58remains pending with the Administrative Appeals Office. However, because Pineda has effectively been granted the relief he sought (namely, a six-month delay in removal proceedings), his petition is moot. *See Kamagate v. Ashcroft,*385 F.3d 144, 150 (2d Cir. 2004) (“A case becomes moot, if, at any stage of the proceedings, it fails to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution.”).

We hereby DISMISS as moot Pineda’s petition for review of the BIA’s order of July 13,2016.

1

. Pineda applied for a waiver of inadmissibility alongside his U visa application. Such a waiver was required in order for USCIS to consider his U visa application, as a U visa applicant must be admissible to the United States or otherwise seek a waiver of inadmissibility from USCIS. *See*8 C.F.R. §§ 212.17(a), 214.1(a)(3)(f), 214.14(b) & (c)(2)(iv).
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05188]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to The National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 Cooperative Research Group on Particle Sensor 
Performance and Durability

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 8, 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''), Southwest Research 
Institute--Cooperative Research Group on Particle Sensor Performance 
and Durability (``PSPD-II'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Coorstek Sensors, LLC, Grand Junction, CO, 
has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PSPD-II intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On March 15, 2017, PSPD-II filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
April 14, 2017 (82 FR 18012).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 12, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on April 20, 2021 (86 FR 20522).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05188 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 667 

To authorize Department of Veterans Affairs health care providers to provide 

recommendations and opinions to veterans regarding participation in 

State marijuana programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2015 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. JONES, Mr. AMASH, 

Mr. REED, Mr. HANNA, Ms. TITUS, Mr. FARR, and Mr. POLIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize Department of Veterans Affairs health care 

providers to provide recommendations and opinions to 

veterans regarding participation in State marijuana programs. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Equal Access 

5 Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 667 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROVISION BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF2 FAIRS HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS OF REC3 OMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS REGARDING 

4 VETERAN PARTICIPATION IN STATE MARI5 JUANA PROGRAMS. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec7 retary of Veterans Affairs shall authorize physicians and 

8 other health care providers employed by the Department 

9 of Veterans Affairs to— 

10 (1) provide recommendations and opinions to 

11 veterans who are residents of States with State 

12 marijuana programs regarding the participation of 

13 veterans in such State marijuana programs; and 

14 (2) complete forms reflecting such recommenda15 tions and opinions. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 304

Approving certain regulations to implement provisions of the Congressional

Accountability Act of 1995 relating to labor-management relations with

respect to employing offices of the Senate and employees of the Senate,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Approving certain regulations to implement provisions of the

Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 relating to

labor-management relations with respect to employing

offices of the Senate and employees of the Senate, and

for other purposes.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF REGULATIONS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The regulations described in sub4 section (b) are hereby approved, insofar as such regula5 tions apply to employing offices of the Senate and employ6 ees of the Senate under the Congressional Accountability

7 Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) and to the extent
2

•SRES 304 ATS

1 such regulations are consistent with the provisions of such

2 Act.

3 (b) REGULATIONS APPROVED.—The regulations re4 ferred to in subsection (a) are the regulations issued by

5 the Office of Compliance on July 9, 1996, under section

6 220(d) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995

7 (2 U.S.C. 1351(d)) to implement section 220 of such Act

8 (relating to the application of chapter 71 of title 5, United

9 States Code), as published at 142 Cong. Rec. H7454

10 (daily ed. July 11, 1996).

11 SEC. 2. ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO HEAR12 ING OFFICERS.

13 The Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance

14 shall adopt regulations (in accordance with section 304 of

15 the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.

16 1384)) to implement the requirement that the Board refer

17 any matter under section 220(c)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C.

18 1351(c)(1)) that relates to employing offices of the Senate

19 and employees of the Senate to a hearing officer.

Æ
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------

                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-J8
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-J8


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                       Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
1 John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sit ting by a ssignmen t. NO. 07-06-0013-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL E MARCH 24, 2006

______________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF WESLEY S HERMAN W OOD AND B RENDA S UE WOOD AND IN T HE INTER EST OF WH ITNEY SH AWN WOOD, A CHILD,

_________________________________ FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RA NDALL COUNTY; NO. 56,99 8-B; HONO RABLE J OHN BOAR D, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. and BOYD , S.J. 1 MEMORAND UM OPINION Pending before th is Court is appel lant B renda Sue Wood’s motion to dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). Per the certificate of conference, appellee Wesley Sherman Wood doe s not opp ose the mo tion. We grant the mo tion, and per the motion, costs are to be assessed against the party incurring them. Having dismissed the appeal2

atBrenda Sue Wood’s reques t, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Don H. Reavis Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 732 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 732

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the opportunity for 
  veterans to use video conferencing for hearings before the Board of 
                           Veterans' Appeals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2015

 Mr. Ruiz (for himself, Mrs. Walorski, Ms. Norton, Mr. Cartwright, Ms. 
  Brownley of California, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Jolly, Ms. Kuster, Mr. 
   Honda, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Thompson of California, and Mr. Rangel) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the opportunity for 
  veterans to use video conferencing for hearings before the Board of 
                           Veterans' Appeals.

    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 ``Veterans Access to Speedy Review 
Act''.

SEC. 2. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS VIDEO HEARINGS.

    Section 7107 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (d), by amending paragraph (1) to read as 
        follows:
    ``(1)(A) Upon request for a hearing, the Board shall determine, for 
purposes of scheduling the hearing for the earliest possible date, 
whether a hearing before the Board will be held at its principal 
location or at a facility of the Department or other appropriate 
Federal facility located within the area served by a regional office of 
the Department. The Board shall also determine whether to provide a 
hearing through the use of the facilities and equipment described in 
subsection (e)(1) or by the appellant personally appearing before a 
Board member or panel.
    ``(B) The Board shall notify the appellant of the determinations of 
the location and type of hearing made under subparagraph (A). Upon 
notification, the appellant may request a different location or type of 
hearing as described in such subparagraph. If so requested, the Board 
shall grant such request and ensure that the hearing is scheduled at 
the earliest possible date without any undue delay or other prejudice 
to the appellant.''; and
            (2) in subsection (e), by amending paragraph (2) to read as 
        follows:
    ``(2) Any hearing provided through the use of the facilities and 
equipment described in paragraph (1) shall be conducted in the same 
manner as, and shall be considered the equivalent of, a personal 
hearing''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL AND EXECUTIVE FINANCIAL 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 Seven Seas Acquisition Corporation, (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Rozelle, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

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



Date: October 3, 2011



/s/ Joseph Rozelle

Joseph Rozelle

President

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.