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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2392 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2392

   To make participation in the American Community Survey voluntary, 
except with respect to certain basic questions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2019

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To make participation in the American Community Survey voluntary, 
except with respect to certain basic questions, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Community Survey Act''.

SEC. 2. PARTICIPATION IN AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY.

    (a) Optional Questions.--Section 193 of title 13, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary 
shall include, in the instructions for completing any survey authorized 
under this section, a statement indicating that answering any question 
other than questions that solicit the information described in section 
221(c)(2)(A) is optional.''.
    (b) Refusal To Participate.--Section 221 of title 13, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Whoever, being over 
        eighteen years of age,'' and inserting ``Except as provided in 
        subsection (c), any person older than 18 years of age who''; 
        and
            (2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
    ``(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title--
            ``(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information 
        relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in 
        a religious body; and
            ``(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), no person may be 
        fined or otherwise compelled to answer questions in connection 
        with the survey, conducted by the Secretary of Commerce, which 
        is commonly referred to as the `American Community Survey'.
    ``(2) Paragraph (1)(B)--
            ``(A) shall not apply to any question that elicits--
                    ``(i) the name of the respondent;
                    ``(ii) contact information for the respondent;
                    ``(iii) the date of the response; or
                    ``(iv) the number of people living or staying at 
                the same address; and
            ``(B) does not waive any penalty imposed for conduct 
        described in subsection (b).''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2402 

To extend the protections of the Fair Housing Act to persons suffering 

discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2019 

Mr. SCHNEIDER (for himself, Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana, Ms. WEXTON, and Mr. 

FITZPATRICK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend the protections of the Fair Housing Act to persons 

suffering discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual 

orientation, 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 ‘‘Fair and Equal Hous5 ing Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HOUSING. 

7 (a) FAIR HOUSING ACT.—The Fair Housing Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2402 IH

1 (1) in section 802, by adding at the end the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(p) ‘Race’, ‘color’, ‘religion’, ‘sex’ (including sexual 

4 orientation and gender identity), ‘handicap’, ‘familial sta5 tus’, or ‘national origin’, used with respect to an indi6 vidual, includes— 

7 ‘‘(1) the race, color, religion, sex (including sex8 ual orientation and gender identity), handicap, fa9 milial status, or national origin, respectively, of an10 other person with whom the individual is associated 

11 or has been associated; and 

12 ‘‘(2) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, 

13 concerning the race, color, religion, sex (including 

14 sexual orientation and gender identity), handicap, 

15 familial status, or national origin, respectively, of the 

16 individual. 

17 ‘‘(q) ‘Gender identity’ means the gender-related iden18 tity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related 

19 characteristics of an individual, without regard to the indi20 vidual’s designated sex at birth. 

21 ‘‘(r) ‘Sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, het22 erosexuality, or bisexuality.’’; 

23 (2) in section 804, by inserting ‘‘(including sex24 ual orientation and gender identity)’’ after ‘‘sex’’ 

25 each place that term appears; 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2402 IH

1 (3) in section 805, by inserting ‘‘(including sex2 ual orientation and gender identity)’’ after ‘‘sex’’ 

3 each place that term appears; 

4 (4) in section 806, by inserting ‘‘(including sex5 ual orientation and gender identity)’’ after ‘‘sex’’ 

6 each place that term appears; and 

7 (5) in section 808(e)(6), by inserting ‘‘(includ8 ing sexual orientation and gender identity)’’ after 

9 ‘‘sex’’. 

10 (b) PREVENTION OF INTIMIDATION IN FAIR HOUS11 ING CASES.—Section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 

12 (42 U.S.C. 3631) is amended by inserting ‘‘(including sex13 ual orientation (as such term is defined in section 802 of 

14 this Act) and gender identity (as such term is defined in 

15 section 802 of this Act))’’ after ‘‘sex’’ each place that term 

16 appears. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.1

To The Board of Directors
Yi Wan Group, Inc.

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Yi Wan Group, Inc.
Audited Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2004 and 2003


We consent to the  incorporation  in the Annual Report of Yi Wan Group,  Inc. on
Form 10-K of our report  dated March 21, 2005 on our audits of the  consolidated
financial  statements of Yi Wan Group,  Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2004 and 2003 and for the years then ended,  which our reports are  incorporated
in the Form 10-K.


/s/ Moore Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP

Walnut, California
April 15, 2005
#### LZG Realty, LLC, et al., Respondents, v H.D.W. 2005 Forest, LLC, Appellant, and Eli Weinstein, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And Other Actions.)

Submitted January 3, 2012;

decided February 21, 2012

Reported below, 87 AD3d 727.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the actions within the meaning of the Constitution.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**
**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**
**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


In connection with
the Annual Report of M-GAB Development Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Carl M. Berg,
President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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)
 Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: March 15, 2005
    /s/ Carl M. BergBy: Carl M. BergIts: President


A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to M-GAB Development Corporation and will be retained by
M-GAB Development Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION (CFO) 1350





DIGUANG INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD.





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 Annual Report of Diguang International Development Co., Ltd., the “ Company” , on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the “ Report” , I, Junjiang Li, Controller 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 the Company.





Date: March 31, 2011





/s/ Junjiang LiJunjiang LiController
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 of Koko, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Gregory Ruff, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 13th day of May, 2010.








GREGORY RUFFGregory RuffChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE v. MILLIGAN

No. 350A98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 342

Motion by Attorney General to dismiss appeals allowed 8 October 1998.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

BRYAN PHILLIP BONHAM, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK, 

Res • ondent. 

No. 84406 

FILE 

APR 1 4 2022 

EUZABEM A. BROWN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This pro se original petition seeks a writ of mandamus 

compelling the district court to supply petitioner free copies of written 

orders regarding petitioner's motion to correct illegal sentence and petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus. Having considered the petition, we are not 

persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is 

warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 

222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (petitioners bear the burden to 

demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted). 

Petitioner has not demonstrated that he requested and was 

denied free copies by the district court in the first instance. See NRAP 

21(a)(4) (providing that the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing 

all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the 

petition"). Even assuming the relief sought here could be properly obtained 

through a petition for writ relief, any application for such relief should first 

be directed to and resolved by the district court. See State v. Cty. of Douglas, 

90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that "this court 

prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the 

discretion of the appropriate district coure in the first instance), abrogated 

SUPFtEPAE COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A ?-I 7 4,3 
on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 

P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013).1Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED.2 

Parraguirre 

j ,J. 

Hardesty Stiglich 

cc: Bryan Phillip Bonham 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

1To the extent the district court has not yet issued a written order 

regarding petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this court is 

confident the district court will issue a written ruling as expeditiously as its 

calendar permits. 

2Petitioner's March 18, 2022, "Notice of Motion/Petition" is denied. 

SUPREME Couffr 

Of 

NEVADA 

101 1947A catIVIo. 

2
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Red Sun Mining, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew Taylor,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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.


/s/ Matthew Taylor
------------------------------
Matthew Taylor
Chief Financial Officer
June 6, 2008

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

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 or its staff upon request.
#### Zsolt LAGLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-13956.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 14, 2006.

Bernard H. Dempsey, Jr., Nancy A. Johnson, Dempsey & Associates, Winter Park, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Alec Dane Russell, Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A., Andrew S. Hament, Gray Robinson, P.A., Melbourne, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before ANDERSON, HULL and CUDAHY,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

After oral argument and careful consideration, and for the reasons explored at oral argument, we readily conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. Especially in light of the plaintiff’s own personal notes (which are merely the strongest of extensive evidence supporting the reasonableness of the perception of all five of defendants’ decision makers), plaintiff has altogether failed to create genuine issues of material fact. In this regard, we note that plaintiffs personal notes were apparently recorded contemporaneously with or shortly after the relevant events. On this record, we cannot conclude that a reasonable jury could find that retaliation against plaintiff was a motivating factor for the employment decision.1

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

1

. In light of our holding, we need not decide whether *Desert Palace v. Costa,*539 U.S. 90, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003), applies in the mixed motive retaliation context. Moreover, we note that plaintiff failed to present the case to the district court as a mixed motive case, but, in light of our disposition, we need not address whether or not the issue should be considered preserved.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 00-30192 Summary Calendar

CONNIE BRASSEAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana

(98-CV-2018) October 4, 2000 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
C onnie Brasseaux (“Brasseaux”) was seriously injured o n or about Au gust 28, 1998, when the wave runner she was riding went

over the Demopolis Dam on the Tombigbee River in Demopolis, Alabama. Brasseaux filed suit on October 21, 1998, against the2

United States alleging, among other causes of action, that the United States, through the Corps of Engineers, was negligent in not placing and maintaining adequate warning sign s to indicate the location of the Sixth Crest Spillway. The United States filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, m otion for summary judgment, based on the discretionary function excepti on to the Federal Tort Claims Act as applied to the Suits in Admiralty Act. The district court granted the motion to dismiss and judgment was entered in favor of the United States. Brasseaux timely appeals. We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by the district court in his ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss filed September 15, 1999, we affirm the decision of the district court to grant the motion to dismiss of the United States.

AFFIRMED
.
Exhibit 99.3

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

In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Annual Report") of Mission Energy Holding Company (the "Company"), and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies, based upon his knowledge, that:

| | /s/THEODORE F. CRAVER, JR.Theodore F. Craver, Jr. Chief Executive
OfficerMission Energy Holding Company
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/KEVIN M. SMITHKevin M. Smith Chief Financial OfficerMission Energy Holding Company                  

This
statement accompanies the Annual Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mission Energy Holding Company and will be retained by Mission Energy Holding Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or is staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

SIMS, COOK, and GALLAGHER 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Specialist RUSSELL O. DeGEORGE 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20110355 

Fort Campbell Installation 

Timothy Grammel, Military Judge 

Lieutenant Colonel Joseph B. Morse, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Major Jacob D. Bashore, Jr., JA; Captain Kristin McGrory, JA. 

For Appellee: Major Amber J. Williams, JA. 

31 January 2012 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

Per Curiam: 

 A military judge, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted appellant, 

contrary to his plea, of possession of child pornography, in violation of Article 134, 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934 [hereinafter UCMJ]. Appellant 

was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eighteen months, 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction in rank to Private E1. Pursuant 

to a pretrial agreement, the convening authority approved only so much of the 

sentence to confinement as provided for twelve months and otherwise approved the 

adjudged sentence. The convening authority waived the automatic forfeiture of all 

pay and allowances for a period of six months, effective 29 June 2011. This case is 

before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. 

On consideration of the entire record, and the matters personally raised by 

appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), we 

find appellant’s arguments to be without merit. The findings of guilty are affirmed 

and, except for that part of the sentence that includes forfeiture of all pay and 
DeGEORGE—ARMY 20110355 

2

allowances, the court affirms the sentence. All rights, privileges, and property, of 

which appellant was deprived by virtue of that portion of his sentence being set 

aside by this decision, are hereby ordered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58(b) and 75(a). 

 FOR THE COURT: 

 MALCOLM H. SQUIRES JR. 

 Clerk of Court 

                                                           



 The convening authority approved appellant’s request for deferment of automatic 

and adjudged forfeitures until action and waiver of forfeitures for a six-month period 

after action. Subsequently, the waiver of forfeitures for the benefit of appellant’s 

spouse was restated in the convening authority’s action. However, the action also 

approved the adjudged sentence, which included total forfeiture of pay and 

allowances, thus leaving no pay and allowances to waive for the benefit of 

appellant’s spouse. The staff judge advocate provided erroneous advice to the 

convening authority that led to the conflicting action. In order to effectuate the 

clear intent of the convening authority and in the spirit of judicial economy, we set 

aside that portion of the sentence that included total forfeiture of pay and 

allowances. 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.                          

Clerk of Court

FOR THE COURT: