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

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 221 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 221

  To abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2025

   Mr. Burlison (for himself, Ms. Boebert, Mr. Biggs of Arizona, Mr. 
 Collins, Mr. Onder, Mr. Ogles, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Self, and 
  Mr. Gosar) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    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 ``Abolish the ATF Act''.

SEC. 2. ABOLISHMENT OF THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND 
              EXPLOSIVES.

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is hereby 
abolished.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Election Assistance Commission

# AGENCY:

Election Assistance Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The U.S. Election Assistance Commission published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on December 16, 2024 regarding the U.S. Election Assistance Commission proposed information collection in the National Mail Voter Registration Form. The notice contained an incorrect subject heading.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Raymond Williams at 202-924-0794, or email                         *research@eac.gov;*                         U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 633 3rd Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20001.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of December 16, 2024 in FR Doc. 2024-29679, at 89 FR 101596 in the third column, correct the SUBJECT HEADING to read:                

Agency Information Collection Activities: National Mail Voter Registration Form

Camden Kelliher,

General Counsel, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

[FR Doc. 2025-01455 Filed 1-21-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-71-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT L. MIHAILOVICH,

Defendant-Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) No. 3:05-CR-0067-N (BF)

) No. 3:06-CV-1569-N (BF)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

Plaintiff-Respondent. )

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and

the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, the

Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and

they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of

the United States Magistrate Judge are adopted.

SIGNED February 2, 2007.

 

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cr-00067-N Document 66 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 360
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RONALD J. HOLLEMAN,

Petitioner,

VS.

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas

Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:05-CV-1712-G

)

) ECF

)

)

)

ORDER

After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the court finds that

the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct,

and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the court.

SO ORDERED.

February 3, 2006.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01712-G Document 15 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 206
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7274

METKEL ALANA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:10-cv-00564-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted: January 20, 2012 Decided: February 7, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Metkel Alana, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Metkel Alana seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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 petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Alana 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 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 65 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 65

Reaffirming the freedom to decide and expressing continued support for 
                      medication abortion access.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 2025

 Mr. Gottheimer submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
    to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Reaffirming the freedom to decide and expressing continued support for 
                      medication abortion access.

Whereas antiabortion extremists are desperate to ban abortion nationwide and are 
        trying to misuse a centuries-old zombie law to achieve their goals;
Whereas there is a settled understanding of the Comstock Act for nearly a 
        century, and the Department of Justice, the courts, and Congress have 
        made clear that the Comstock laws do not apply to lawful abortions;
Whereas the majority of the public supports abortion access, and an overwhelming 
        majority of Americans (80 percent) oppose a Federal law banning abortion 
        nationwide;
Whereas antiabortion extremists are waging a war on reproductive rights, 
        including the ability to make personal, private health care decisions;
Whereas misusing, misapplying, and misinterpreting the Comstock Act would be yet 
        another attempt to attack access to medication abortion, a safe and 
        effective health care option;
Whereas misusing, misapplying, and misinterpreting the Comstock Act could 
        threaten certain shipping and transportation of basic medical materials; 
        and
Whereas misusing, misapplying, and misinterpreting the Comstock Act could 
        further threaten and endanger sexual and reproductive health: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) affirms the existing authority to distribute medication 
        abortion under Federal law, as confirmed by the December 23, 
        2022, Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel 
        Memorandum Opinion for the General Counsel of the United States 
        Postal Service which states in part that ``Section 1461 of 
        title 18 of the U.S. Code does not prohibit the mailing of 
        certain drugs that can be used to perform abortions where the 
        sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will 
        use them unlawfully.''; and
            (2) condemns restrictions on access to and coverage of 
        reproductive health care, including medication abortion like 
        mifepristone.
                                 <all>
```
Jerry HOLMES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3997

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 09, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1711

___________

Ikechi Kallys Albert, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Dakota Communities, Inc.; Kevin *

Hondl, White Male, Program Director; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Lori Kingston, White Female, Vice *

President of Human Resources; Lisa *

Math, White Female, Program Director; *

Elizabeth Warner, White Female, *

Employee, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 20, 2009

Filed: August 28, 2009

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

Ikechi Kallys Albert appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his action asserting employment discrimination, retaliation, and state law

claims. After reviewing the record de novo, viewing the evidence and all reasonable

inferences from it in a light most favorable to Albert, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289

F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review), we conclude summary judgment

was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, we deny Albert’s

pending motions and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 1 of 24 PageID 1
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 2 of 24 PageID 2
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 3 of 24 PageID 3
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 4 of 24 PageID 4
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 5 of 24 PageID 5
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 6 of 24 PageID 6
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 7 of 24 PageID 7
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 8 of 24 PageID 8
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 9 of 24 PageID 9
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 10 of 24 PageID 10
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 11 of 24 PageID 11
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 12 of 24 PageID 12
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 13 of 24 PageID 13
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 14 of 24 PageID 14
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 15 of 24 PageID 15
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 16 of 24 PageID 16
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 17 of 24 PageID 17
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 18 of 24 PageID 18
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 19 of 24 PageID 19
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 20 of 24 PageID 20
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 21 of 24 PageID 21
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 22 of 24 PageID 22
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 23 of 24 PageID 23
Case 5:05-cv-00029-C Document 1 Filed 02/01/05 Page 24 of 24 PageID 24
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 15, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1238 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1055, K2025-1054.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00797 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit23

 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(Nos.  333-84826, 333-99693 and 333-129949) and on Form S-8 (Nos.333-59281, 333-64389, 333-78317, 333-64300, 333-103752, 333-120393,333-123424 and 333-134607) of L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. andsubsidiaries of our report dated February 28,  2007 relating tothe financial statements, management’s assessments of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, whichappears in this Form 10-K.

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPNewYork, New YorkFebruary 28,2007

----
**Exhibit 31.3**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Required by Rule 13a-14(a), created by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Roque A. Santi,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ECC Capital Corporation; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Dated: November 14, 2006
Case 3:05-cv-00661-M Document 84 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1624
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00661-M Document 84 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 12 PageID 1625
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00661-M Document 84 Filed 07/26/06 Page 3 of 12 PageID 1626
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00661-M Document 84 Filed 07/26/06 Page 4 of 12 PageID 1627
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00661-M Document 84 Filed 07/26/06 Page 5 of 12 PageID 1628
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00661-M Document 84 Filed 07/26/06 Page 6 of 12 PageID 1629
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00661-M Document 84 Filed 07/26/06 Page 7 of 12 PageID 1630
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00661-M Document 84 Filed 07/26/06 Page 8 of 12 PageID 1631
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00661-M Document 84 Filed 07/26/06 Page 9 of 12 PageID 1632
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00661-M Document 84 Filed 07/26/06 Page 10 of 12 PageID 1633
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00661-M Document 84 Filed 07/26/06 Page 11 of 12 PageID 1634
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00661-M Document 84 Filed 07/26/06 Page 12 of 12 PageID 1635
EX PARTE William Jermaine HILL

CR-16-1262

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7718 

JAMES W. TAYLOR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (CA-04-678-5)

Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James W. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James W. Taylor, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Taylor v. Stansberry, No. CA-04-678-5 (E.D.N.C.

Sept. 27, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 quarterly report on Form
10-Q of Pharmasset, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, P. Schaefer Price, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        
|------------------------
|Date: February 9, 2010  
|                        
|/s/    P. SCHAEFER PRICE
|P. Schaefer Price       
|Chief Executive Officer 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pharmasset, Inc. and will be retained by Pharmasset, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ANDREW NILES GORDON, )

ID # 1097997, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-1852-R

 ) ECF

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal )

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court.

SIGNED this 27th day of November , 2006.

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01852-R Document 13 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 51