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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1524 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1524

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 12433 Antioch Road in Overland Park, Kansas, as the ``Ed Eilert Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12433 
Antioch Road in Overland Park, Kansas, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Ed Eilert Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ed Eilert Post Office 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6190

WILLIE MORRIS MCBRIDE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

C. T. NULTY, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-476-3)

Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 11, 1998

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Morris McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells,

Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant’s

motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. McBride v. Nulty, No. CA-97-

476-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 24874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11470]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[AK-964-1410-00-P and F-14932-A2]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

    In accordance with Departmental regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice 
is hereby given that a decision to issue conveyance under the 
provisions of Sec. 14(a) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 
December 18, 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601, 1613(a), will be issued to 
Shaktoolik Native Corporation for approximately 5,992 acres. The lands 
involved are in the vicinity of Shaktoolik, Alaska, within T. 13 S., R. 
11 W., and T. 11 S., R. 14 W., Kateel River Meridian, Alaska.
    A notice of the decision will be published once a week, for four 
(4) consecutive weeks, in the Nome Nugget. Copies of the decision may 
be obtained by contacting the Alaska State Office of the Bureau of Land 
Management, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599 
[(907) 271-5960].
    Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected 
by the decision, an agency of the Federal government or regional 
corporation, shall have until June 9, 1995 to file an appeal. However, 
parties receiving service by certified mail shall have 30 days from the 
date of receipt to file an appeal. Appeals must be filed in the Bureau 
of Land Management at the address identified above, where the 
requirements for filing an appeal may be obtained. Parties who do not 
file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, 
Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
Ana M. Stafford,
Land Law Examiner, Branch of Northern Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 95-11470 Filed 5-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
Roosevelt BATTS, petitioner, v. Louis GIORLA, et al.

No. 12-9150.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Janos FARKAS, petitioner, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.

No. 13-408.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EXHIBIT 99.2




                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 Report on Form 10-Q of Boeing Capital Corporation (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven W. Vogeding,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

        1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
             or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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





August 12, 2002                      /S/ STEVEN W. VOGEDING
                                     ------------------------------------
                                     Steven W. Vogeding
                                     Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

QUITO I. NEHEMIAH,

Petitioner

v.

DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent

______________________

2024

- 1575

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DE

- 0731

- 23

- 0243

- I

- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before D YK

, R EYNA

, and C HEN

, Circuit Judges

.
P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

In response to this court’s July 2, 2024 order directing the parties to address this court’s jurisdiction, Quito I. Nehemiah moves to transfer the case to district court and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management agrees that transfer is appropriate. Case: 24-1575 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 09/17/2024NEHEMIAH v. OPM 2

Mr. Nehemiah appealed his negative suitability decision from the Office of Personnel Management to the Merit Systems Protection Board, asserting, among other things, discrimination based on race and gender. In his filings with this court, Mr. Nehemiah continues to seek review of
his discrimination claims.

Federal d istrict courts, not this court, have jurisdiction over “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” § 7703(b)(2), which involve an allegation of an action appealable to the Board and an allegation that
a basis for the action was covered discrimination, § 7702(a). Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017). Here, Mr. Nehemiah brought a mixed case before the
Board and he seeks judicial review of his discrimination claims such that his case belongs in dist rict court. We agree with the Director that transfer to the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico , where it appears Mr. Nehemiah would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice , is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

- 5(f)(3).

Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The motion to transfer is granted to the extent that this matter and all case filings are transferred to the UnitedStates District Court for the District of New Mexico pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

September 1 7 , 2024
Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 24-1575 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 09/17/2024
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted),
Robert G. Gargus, Chief Financial Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act).
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report
to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Report),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



/s/    ROBERT G.
GARGUSRobert G. Gargus, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Dated: February 9, 2007
Exhibit 10.9



August 14, 2007

Marcus Lowe 
[Address]

RE:  Retention

Dear Marc,

We are offering you the following retention bonus to recognize your commitment to staying with Adaptec as we refocus our
business.  You will receive a retention bonus (subject to applicable withholdings) of six months of your current base pay rate based on
your sustained satisfactory performance.  Two months of the bonus will be paid on November 23, 2007 and four months will be paid on
February 29, 2008.

This retention bonus is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any Adaptec Incentive Plan (AIP) payment you are eligible to receive based
on the Plan document, or severance benefits you will receive as noted in your Employment Agreement.

If you voluntarily leave Adaptec's employment or are involuntarily terminated for cause prior to the date as of which a retention
bonus payment is due to be paid, you will not be entitled to receive that payment.   Cause is defined as any of the following: (1) A
deliberate or serious breach of your material duties as assigned by the Company; (2) Refusal or unwillingness to perform such duties;
or (3) Arrest or conviction of a felony, a serious violation of the law, or other crime involving moral turpitude, fraud, misappropriation of
funds, habitual insobriety or illegal drug use.

If you are involuntarily terminated due to a Change of Control as defined in the Company's 2004 Equity Incentive Plan
("Change of Control") or reduction in force, you will be entitled to receive both retention bonus payments, payable
immediately upon the termination of your employment.

The Company shall require any successor or assignee, in connection with any sale, transfer or other disposition of all or
substantially all of Adaptec's assets or business, whether by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise, expressly to assume and
agree to perform Adaptec's obligations under this Agreement in the same manner and to the same extent that Adaptec would be
required to perform if no such succession or assignment had taken place.  Adaptec will cover all of your legal expenses incurred by you
to enforce this Retention Agreement following a Change of Control, payable within ten (10) days of your submission of evidence of your
incurring such expenses as a result of a refusal to pay retention benefits under this Agreement.

The commitment of the Company under this agreement is not revocable.

Sincerely,



|/s/ Sundi Sundaresh    
|-----------------------
|Sundi Sundaresh        
|Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Martha L. Long, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles Income Properties, Ltd. II;

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, 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, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

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



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  November 8, 2007

/s/Martha L. Long

Martha L. Long

Senior Vice President of Angeles Realty Corporation II, equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6942
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE BAUTISTA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-400-A) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 18, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Bautista, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jose Bautista appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for production of transcript at government expense. 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. United States v. Bautista , No. CR-91-400-A (E.D. Va. June 4, 1998). 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
#### Donnae C. REEDY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, RespondentsAppellees.

No. 04-6137.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 21, 2004.

Donnae C. Reedy, Appellant pro se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Donnae C. Reedy seeks to appeal the district court’s order and order on reconsideration dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Reedy cannot appeal these orders unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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) (2000). A habeas appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 326, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Reedy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Reedy’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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 *927the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 32.2  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 of Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric T. Jones, Chief Financial Accounting Officer 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, 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 Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc.    /s/ Eric T. Jones DATE:  August 16, 2010 Eric R. Jones, Secretary/Treasurer and Chief Financial Accounting Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc. and will be retained by Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc. to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER AFTER HEARING ON

MOTION TO CONTINUE

TRIAL DATE

To the extent stated herein and on the record at the hearing yesterday, plaintiff Waymo

LLC’s motion to continue the trial date (Dkt. No. 1604) is GRANTED. A new final pretrial

conference is set for NOVEMBER 28 AT 8:00 A.M. Jury selection will begin on NOVEMBER 29

AT 7:30 A.M. The jury trial will begin on DECEMBER 4 AT 7:30 A.M. and continue through

December 20. If necessary, we will then take a short break and resume trial in January 2018.

Any request by Waymo to amend its list of asserted trade secrets for trial, expert reports,

or lineup of trial exhibits and witnesses must be made via a formal motion to be filed by

OCTOBER 23 AT NOON, with any response due by OCTOBER 25 AT NOON and a hearing on

OCTOBER 26 AT 8:00 A.M. Also by OCTOBER 23 AT NOON, Waymo may file a supplemental

offer of proof as to defendant Otto Trucking LLC, with any supplemental response due by

OCTOBER 25 AT NOON. Otto Trucking’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 1423) will

then be decided without another hearing.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1954 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Any response to the media coalition’s motion to intervene (Dkt. No. 1919) must be filed

by OCTOBER 16 AT NOON. The media coalition may reply by OCTOBER 23 AT NOON. The

media coalition’s motion and Waymo’s motion to close the courtroom for trial (Dkt. No. 1822)

will be heard together at the final pretrial conference on NOVEMBER 28 AT 8:00 A.M.

Going forward, the parties shall complete currently-pending discovery, but no new

discovery may be taken except by stipulation or with Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley’s

advance permission. Moreover, except for discovery disputes, no new motion (or supplement

to any pending motion) may be filed in this action without the Court’s advance permission. A

party seeking such permission must submit a précis summarizing the key arguments from and

relief sought by the proposed motion, as well as its timing needs. The opposing side will then

have 48 HOURS to respond. The précis and response are each limited to FIVE PAGES in length

(twelve-point font, double-spaced, with no footnotes or attachments). After considering the

précis and any response thereto, the Court will either grant or deny permission to file the

proposed motion. If permission is granted, a briefing schedule and hearing date will be set.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1954 Filed 10/04/17 Page 2 of 2