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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8368 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8368

   To amend title VI of the Social Security Act to permit the use of 
amounts under the Coronavirus Relief Fund for rural broadband expansion 
                            and improvement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 24, 2020

   Mr. Barr introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title VI of the Social Security Act to permit the use of 
amounts under the Coronavirus Relief Fund for rural broadband expansion 
                            and improvement.

    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 ``Rural Broadband Expansion Act of 
2020''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION RELATING TO CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND EXPENDITURES.

    (a) In General.--Section 601 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
801) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) Rural Broadband Expansion or Improvement.--For purposes of 
subsection (d) and notwithstanding paragraph (3) of such subsection, 
necessary expenditures described in such subsection shall include the 
expansion or improvement of infrastructure in rural areas (as defined 
in section 1026.35(b)(iv)(A) of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations 
(or any successor regulation)) for the provision of broadband internet 
access service (as defined in section 8.1(b) of title 47, Code of 
Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation)).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to payments made to a State, Tribal government, or 
unit of local government under title VI of the Social Security Act 
before or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brian E. Schaaf, certify that:

 

1.                                     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2014-C (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                     Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                     Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                     I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                     All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon, as indenture trustee of the issuing entity, and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as owner trustee of the issuing entity.

 
| Dated   March 23, 2016 |                                               |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                        |                                               |
|                        |                                               |
|                        | /s/   Brian E. Schaaf                              |
|                        | Brian   E. Schaaf                                  |
|                        | Vice   President and Assistant Treasurer           |
|                        | Ford   Motor Credit Company LLC, as Servicer       |
|                        | (senior   officer in charge of servicing function) |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry E. NORRIS, a.k.a. T, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-12666 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 16, 2018)

David Charles Waterman, U.S. Attorney Service — Middle District of Florida, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ryan Thomas Truskoski, Ryan Thomas Truskoski, PA, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARCUS, JULIE CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *See United States v. Bushert,*997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence-appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); *United States v. Grinard-Henry,*399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error); *United States v. Rubbo,*396 F.3d 1330, 1334 (11th Cir. 2005) (plea agreements are like contracts and should be interpreted in accord with what the parties intended).
#### Charles K. JOHNSTON, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellant v. Lisa M. WILKINS, Hearing Judge, Arkansas Parole Board; Supervisor Mark Bernthal, Probation and Parole Office, Rogers, Arkansas; Sheriff Vic Regalado, Tulsa County, Oklahoma; Kinsey Rivers, Probation and Parole Agent, Rogers, Arkansas Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-2956

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 29, 2017

Filed: January 8, 2018

*405Charles K. Johnston, Jr., Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Charles Johnston, Jr. appeals the district court’s preservice dismissal of his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction. We review de novo the dismissals for failure to state a claim, *see Moore v. Sims,*200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), and we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons stated in the district court’s order.

We also agree that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant Sheriff Vic Regalado of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. The complaint did not allege that Regalado had any contacts with Arkansas that would subject him to the jurisdiction of the district court in the Western District of Arkansas. *See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,*444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 569, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); *Epps v. Stewart Information Servs. Corp.,*327 F.3d 642, 647-48 (8th Cir. 2003); *Sanders v. United States,*760 F.2d 869, 871 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).

We conclude, however, that the district court should have considered whether the interest, of justice required it to transfer the claim against Regalado to the Northern District of Oklahoma (where the conduct occurred) rather than dismiss it. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1631. Because there is no indication that the district court considered whether transfer would be in the interest of justice, we remand this claim so the district court may do so. *See Weeks Const., Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Hous. Auth.,*797 F.2d 668, 676 (8th Cir. 1986).

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissals for failure to state a claim, but remand the claim against defendant Regalado for the district court to consider whether the interest of justice requires it to transfer the claim to the Northern District of Oklahoma. Johnston’s motions for appointment of counsel are denied.
No. 11-10378.

#### Bryant *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
NO. 07-01-0313-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	OCTOBER 22, 2001

	______________________________

	SUSAN MORROW, APPELLANT

	V.

	ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF HARRIS COUNTY;

	NO. 723,696; HONORABLE LYNN BRADSHAW-HULL, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Appellant Susan Morrow perfected an appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee Allstate Insurance Company on her counterclaim for attorney’s fees.  The clerk’s record was filed on June 29, 2001.  Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on July 30, 2001, but has yet to be filed.  Also no motion for extension of time has been filed.  By letter dated October 2, 2001, this Court notified appellant’s counsel, Sean K. McPherson, of the defect and also directed that counsel reasonably explain by October 12, 2001,  the failure to file a brief together with a showing that appellee has not been significantly injured.  Counsel did not respond and the brief remains outstanding.  

	Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b).

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice

Do not publish.
Exhibit 32.1

             CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT

                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Harold Blomquist, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Simtek Corporation on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Simtek Corporation.



/s/Harold Blomquist
-------------------------------------
Harold Blomquist
Chief Executive Officer and President

August 4, 2006
II 

Calendar No. 89 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 829 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 8, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

MAY 15, 2019 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1450 Montauk Highway in Mastic, New York, 

as the ‘‘Army Specialist Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST THOMAS J. WILWERTH POST 

4 OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1450 Montauk Highway in Mas7 tic, New York, shall be known and designated as the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 829 RS

1 ‘‘Army Specialist Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Army Specialist 

7 Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Calendar No. 89 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 829 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostThomas J. Wilwerth Post Office Building’’. Mastic, New York, as the ‘‘Army Specialist al Service located at 1450 Montauk Highway in 

MAY 15, 2019 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8468 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to allow certain students 

enrolled in an institution of higher education to apply for teaching 

residency programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 

Mrs. TRAHAN (for herself, Mrs. HAYES, and Mrs. BUSTOS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to allow certain 

students enrolled in an institution of higher education 

to apply for teaching residency programs, 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 ‘‘Supporting Teachers 

5 with Residency Opportunities and New Grants Act of 

6 2020’’ or the ‘‘STRONG Act of 2020’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8468 IH

1 SEC. 2. TEACHER RESIDENCY PROGRAMS. 

2 (a) PARTNERSHIP GRANTS.—Section 

3 202(e)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

4 (20 U.S.C. 1022a(e)(2)(B)(i)(I)) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘education or’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘education,’’; and 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘accomplishment’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘accomplishment, or enrolled in a pre-baccalaureate 

9 program at a four-year institution of higher edu10 cation with an academic major relating to teaching’’. 

11 (b) PUBLIC SERVICE LOAN FORGIVENESS.—Section 

12 455(m)(3)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

13 U.S.C. 1087e(m)(3)(B)) is amended— 

14 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

15 (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the 

16 end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

17 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

18 ‘‘(iii) participating, as a pre-bacca19 laureate student, in a teacher residency 

20 program under section 202 of this Act.’’. 

21 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

22 209 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

23 1022h) is amended by striking ‘‘$300,000,000’’ and all 

24 that follows and inserting ‘‘$600,000,000 for fiscal years 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8468 IH

1 2021 through 2023 and such sums as may be necessary 

2 for each succeeding fiscal year.’’ 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.2

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Amendment No. 1 to
Registration Statement No. 333-96981 of BJ Services Company on Form S-3/A of
our report dated November 14, 2001, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of BJ Services Company for the year ended September 30, 2001, and to the
reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of
this Registration Statement.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Houston, Texas
September 18, 2002
#### COM. v. WOLFE, J.

1236 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/15/2017

CP-67-CR-0001009-2015

(York)

Affirmed
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 22 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 22

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 limiting the number of consecutive terms for Members of the House of 
                    Representatives and the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

   Mr. Solomon introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 limiting the number of consecutive terms for Members of the House of 
                    Representatives and the Senate.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. A person may not serve any portion of a term as a 
Representative if the person has served as a Representative for more 
than one year of each of the six terms that immediately precede the 
term.
    ``Section 2. A person may not serve any portion of a term as a 
Senator if the person has served as a Senator for more than three years 
of each of the two terms that immediately precede the term.
    ``Section 3. This article shall not prevent a person who is serving 
any portion of a term as a Representative or Senator on the date of the 
ratification of this article from serving the remainder of the term.''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 844 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to allow for modified 

permits for industrial minerals remining operations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2019 

Mr. GIBBS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to allow 

for modified permits for industrial minerals remining 

operations, 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 ‘‘Industrial Mineral 

5 Parity Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFIED PERMIT FOR REMINING OPERATIONS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 301(p)(1) of the Federal 

8 Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1311(p)(1)) is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘coal’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 844 IH

1 (b) LIMITATIONS.—Section 301(p)(2) of the Federal 

2 Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1311(p)(2)) is 

3 amended by striking ‘‘coal’’ each place it appears. 

4 (c) DEFINITIONS.—Section 301(p)(3) of the Federal 

5 Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1311(p)(3)) is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and 

8 (C) as subparagraphs (D) and (F), respectively; 

9 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(B) INDUSTRIAL MINERAL.—The term 

12 ‘industrial mineral’ means limestone, clay, sand, 

13 gravel, diatomite, kaolin, bentonite, silica, bar14 ite, gypsum, or talc. 

15 ‘‘(C) INDUSTRIAL MINERALS REMINING OP16 ERATION.—The term ‘industrial minerals re17 mining operation’ means an industrial minerals 

18 mining operation that begins after the date of 

19 the enactment of the Industrial Mineral Parity 

20 Act of 2019 at a site on which coal mining was 

21 conducted before the effective date of the Sur22 face Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

23 1977.’’; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 844 IH

1 (3) in subparagraph (D), as so redesignated, by 

2 striking ‘‘coal remining’’ and inserting ‘‘remining’’; 

3 and 

4 (4) by inserting after subparagraph (D), as so 

5 redesignated, the following: 

6 ‘‘(E) REMINING OPERATION.—The term 

7 ‘remining operation’ means a coal remining op8 eration or an industrial minerals remining oper9 ation.’’. 

10 (d) APPLICABILITY OF STRIP MINING LAWS.—Sec11 tion 301(p)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

12 (33 U.S.C. 1311(p)(4)) is amended by striking ‘‘coal’’. 

13 (e) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 301(p) of 

14 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

15 1311(p)) is amended in the subsection heading by striking 

16 ‘‘COAL’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### COM. v. MAIER, J.

746 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/07/2017

CP-02-CR-0016334-2014 (Allegheny)

Affirmed
Submitted September 28;

portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed November 2, 2016

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*BRENT MICHAEL CALDWELL, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Coos County Circuit Court

14CR2465; A159303

383 P3d 1003

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Matthew Blythe, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Keith L. Kutler, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

*69PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of felony driving under the influence of intoxicants (Count 1) and driving while suspended or revoked (Count 2). On Count 1, the court sentenced defendant to eight months in jail and two years of post-prison supervision, revoked defendant’s driver’s license, and imposed a $2,000 fine; on Count 2, the court imposed an additional $2,000 fine. The court also ordered defendant to pay $200 in court-appointed attorney fees.

On appeal, defendant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the court’s imposition of court-appointed attorney fees. We reject without discussion defendant’s assignments of error regarding the motion to suppress. However, we agree with defendant—and the state’s concession—that the trial court plainly erred by imposing court-appointed attorney fees when the record is silent regarding defendant’s ability to pay those fees. We exercise our discretion to correct that error, for reasons similar to those expressed in *State v. Ramirez-Hernandez,*264 Or App 346, 349, 332 P3d 338 (2014) (exercising discretion to correct erroneous imposition of $400 in court-appointed attorney fees because the amount was “substantial” in light of defendant’s circumstances).

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.