alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 41 

AN ACT 

To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out 

the National Flood Insurance Program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 41 EH

1 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN BORROWING AU2 THORITY FOR NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE 

3 PROGRAM. 

4 (a) Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance 

5 Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘$20,725,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$30,425,000,000’’. 

7 (b) The amount provided by this section is designated 

8 by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 

9 to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), 

10 the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 

11 2010, and as an emergency pursuant to section 4(g) of 

12 the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 

13 933(g)). 

Passed the House of Representatives January 4, 

2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 41 

AN ACT 

To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of 

gram. carrying out the National Flood Insurance Prothe Federal Emergency Management Agency for
State v. Nashid Porter

153P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 23, 2016

Nashid Porter, For Porter, Nashid.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, For State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of May 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of May 2016."
STATE v. Antwarn Lee ROGERS

63A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 23, 2017

Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, Wyatt Orsbon, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Rogers, Antwarn Lee.

Heather H. Freeman, Assistant Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of February 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of February 2017."
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40989

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HOWARD LUIS PEREZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-315-1

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Howard Luis Perez has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Perez has not filed a response. Our independent review of

the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4137 

To prohibit assistance provided under the program of block grants to States 

for temporary assistance for needy families from being accessed through 

the use of an electronic benefit transfer card at any store that offers 

marijuana for sale. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2014 

Mr. REICHERT (for himself, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. TIPTON, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. 

COFFMAN, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas, Mr. 

GOSAR, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. YOUNG of Indiana, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, 

and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To prohibit assistance provided under the program of block 

grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families from being accessed through the use of an electronic 

benefit transfer card at any store that offers marijuana 

for sale. 

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 ‘‘Preserving Welfare for 

5 Needs Not Weed Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4137 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF ELECTRONIC BENEFIT 

2 TRANSFER CARD TO ACCESS TANF ASSIST3 ANCE AT ANY STORE THAT OFFERS MARI4 JUANA FOR SALE. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—Section 408(a)(12)(A) of the So6 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(12)(A)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (ii); 

8 (2) by striking the period at the end of clause 

9 (iii) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

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

11 ‘‘(iv) any establishment that offers 

12 marihuana (as defined in section 102(16) 

13 of the Controlled Substances Act) for 

14 sale.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 2 years 

17 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. John Arthur STROUD

No. COA16-989

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 2, 2017

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
# Gold Star Mother's Day, 2005

The men and women of America's Armed Forces selflessly serve to protect our Nation, and they are among our greatest heroes. From the trenches of World War I to the beaches of Normandy, from Korea to Vietnam, from Afghanistan to Iraq, many courageous members of our military have given their lives so that Americans could live in freedom and security. On Gold Star Mother's Day, we recognize and pray for the devoted and patriotic mothers of these men and women in uniform who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our liberty.

America's Gold Star Mothers carry a great burden of grief, yet they show a tremendous spirit of generosity in helping their fellow citizens. With kindness and understanding, they support members of our Armed Forces and their families, provide vital services to veterans, help to educate young people about good citizenship and our Nation's founding ideals, and bring comfort to many in need. We commend these proud women for their compassion, commitment, and patriotism, and our Nation will always honor them for their sacrifice and service.

The Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution 115 of June 23, 1936 (49 Stat. 1895 as amended), has designated the last Sunday in September as “Gold Star Mother's Day” and has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation in its observance. On this day, we express our deep gratitude to our Nation's Gold Star Mothers, and we ask God's blessings on them and on their families.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Sunday, September 25, 2005, as Gold Star Mother's Day. I call upon all Government officials to display the flag of the United States over Government buildings on this solemn day. I also encourage the American people to display the flag and hold appropriate ceremonies as a public expression of our Nation's sympathy and respect for our Gold Star Mothers.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-first day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.

[FR Doc. 05-19305

Billing code 3195-01-P
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-293-CV

CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS APPELLANT

V.

LAURA FRIEND, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS APPELLEES

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE 

OF SARAH ELIZABETH FRIEND, DECEASED,

AND LUTHER FRIEND, INDIVIDUALLY

----------

FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT 1

----------

We have considered the parties’ “Joint Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” It is

the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: September 25, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4032 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4032

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
 To exempt from Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers by 
the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility 
                   Authority, 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 ``North Texas Invasive Species Barrier 
Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1981.
    Section 5 of Public Law 112-237 (126 Stat. 1629) is amended by 
inserting after ``zebra mussels'' the following: ``and other fish, 
wildlife, and plants present in Lake Texoma that are prohibited under 
section 3 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3372) or under section 42 of title 18, 
United States Code''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VARDUHI SASHOYAN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-71510 

Agency No. A097-364-365 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2020**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Varduhi Sashoyan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of an order from 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen removal 

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny in part and 

dismiss in part the petition. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-71510 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Sashoyan’s motion based on 

her allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias. See Cuenca v. 

Barr, 956 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2020). The BIA’s determination that Sashoyan 

failed to demonstrate the requisite prejudice to substantiate her ineffective assistance 

of counsel and due process claims was not arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. 

See Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017). Nor did the BIA err 

by determining Sashoyan failed to demonstrate that she acted with the necessary 

diligence to warrant equitable tolling and dismissing the motion as untimely. See 

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Sashoyan also contends that her mental health constitutes an exceptional 

circumstance such that the BIA erred by declining to sua sponte reopen her 

proceedings. We generally lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to 

exercise its sua sponte authority, and Sashoyan does not allege a legal or 

constitutional error necessary to invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 

F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
Exhibit 32.1



AMPLIPHI
BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of AmpliPhi
Biosciences Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jeremy Curnock Cook, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
    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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,
or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic
version 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.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed”
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date:  April 15, 2015



| | /s/ Jeremy Curnock Cook                                  
| | ---------------------------------------------------------
| | Jeremy Curnock Cook                                      
| | Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
In the Matter of E.R.D.

No. COA16-79.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
State of North Carolina v. Angela Ladawn McDonald

No. COA15-1375

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

DISMISSED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-16-00383-CV

Style: In re International Agencies Co., Ltd., Relator

Date motion filed*: June 20, 2016

Type of motion: Opposed First Motion to Extend Time for the Filing of Reply to Real 

Parties in Interest, Winnie Stacey Al Wazzan and Jon Malone’s 

Responses to Writ of Mandamus

Party filing motion: Relator International Agencies Co., Ltd.

Document to be filed: Reply to Responses to Petition

Is appeal accelerated? Yes (original proceeding).

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: N/A

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due Date: N/A

Date Requested: June 29, 2016

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: June 29, 2016.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Laura Carter Higley

  Acting

Date: June 21, 2016
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 ICP Solar Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
July 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sass Peress, Chief
Executive Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Sass Peress 
Sass Peress
Chief Executive Officer
September 18, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

---
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 09-0422

IN RE  FOREST OIL CORPORATION, ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC & GAS INSURANCE SERVICES LIMITED AND STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relator’s motion for emergency stay, filed May 20, 2009, is granted.  The Order on Motion to Compel Discovery dated February 9, 2009, in Cause No. 07-CV-1211, styled *Forest Oil Corporation vs. Drilling & Completion Supervisors, Inc., and David Law*, in the 56th District Court of Galveston County, Texas, is stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this May 21, 2009.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
NO. 07-08-0074-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	SEPTEMBER 25, 2008

	______________________________

	ANTHONY DAVID DRAGER,

									Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS,

									Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 57,042-E; HON. RICHARD DAMBOLD, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Anders Opinion

	_________________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

	Anthony David Drager (appellant) appeals his conviction for conspiracy to engage in organized criminal activity.  He entered an open plea of guilty and, after a hearing to the trial court on punishment, was sentenced to twenty years confinement on each count.  

	Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein she certifies that, after diligently searching the record, she concluded that appellant’s appeal is without merit.  Along with her brief, she has filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se.  By letter dated September 18, 2008, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own response by October 20, 2008, if he wished to do so.  Appellant has filed a response.

	In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed two potential areas for appeal including defects in the indictment and ineffectiveness of counsel.  Upon her final analysis, counsel determined that no reversible error existed. Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record along with appellant’s response to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any error, reversible or otherwise, pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) and concluded the same. 

	Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed. 

							Brian Quinn 

						          Chief Justice

Do not publish.
STATE of North Carolina v. Damond Lamont GREENE

No. COA16-1309

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 19, 2017

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 22 75

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Sh erry McDan ie l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v. KraftGlo ba l Fo od s ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Weste rnDis tri ctof M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Jan ua ry

13 , 20 16 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 1, 2 01 6 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, ARNOLD, SMITH, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.
Sh erry McDa ni el ap pe al s aft er t h e d is tri ct co urt di sm is se d he r Tit le VII 1 co m pl ai nt as ba rred by th e st atut e of li m it at io ns . Upo n de no vo rev ie w, we co nc lu de
The Hon or ab le M. Dou gl as Harp oo l, Uni te d St at e s D i s t ric t Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rnDis tri ctof M is so ur i.th at th e di sm is sa l was pr op er, as McDa ni el ’s own fil in gs sh owe d th at sh e br ou gh t he r

la wsu i t m or e th an ni ne ty da y s aft er rece iv in g a rig ht -to -s ue no ti ce fro m th e Equ al Em pl oym en t Opp ortu ni ty Co m m is si on , an d to ll in g of th e li m it at io ns pe rio d was no t warra nt ed . See 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5 (f)(1 ) (s et ti ng fo rth 90 -d ay li m it at io ns pe rio d) ; Ri ch te r v. Adv an ce Aut o P art s, In c., 68 6 F.3 d 84 7, 85 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ex pl ai ni ng ap pl ic at io n of st atut e of li m it at io n) ; Garfi el d v. J.C

. Nich ol s Rea l Est at e, 57 F.3 d 66 2, 66 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (d is cu ss in g equi tabl e t o l l in g) ; se e al so Sch aaf v. Res id en ti al Fu nd in g C or

p., 5 17 F.3d54 4, 5 49 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) (de no vo st an da rdof r ev ie w).
Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
Exhibit 10.1

 

Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation

 

·                  Cash compensation for non-employee Directors (may be deferred and invested in TCF Common Stock) consists of the following:

·                  Annual Retainer of $60,000; and

·                  An additional $20,000 annual retainer for each Committee or Subcommittee a Director Chairs.

·                  An additional $20,000 annual retainer for the Lead Director

·                  Employee Directors are not compensated for service as Directors.

·                  Directors Stock Grant Program:

·                  Annually, non-employee Directors receive grants of TCF Common Stock equal to $45,000.  For Directors elected after a stock grant has been awarded, a pro-rata stock grant is awarded;

·                  The number of shares granted is determined by dividing $45,000 by the average of the high and low prices of TCF Common Stock on the grant date;

·                  The stock grant vests annually, when the next grant is made;

·                  Dividends are paid on unvested shares at the rate generally paid to holders of TCF Common Stock; and

·                  Unvested shares will vest if a change in control occurs.

·                  Non-employee Directors may defer fees and stock grants under the TCF Directors Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Directors Deferred Compensation Plan”) until the end of their Board service.

·                  TCF offers the TCF Matching Gift Program to supplement donations made by non-employee Directors to charitable organizations of their choice up to a maximum of $20,000 annually.

·                  TCF reimburses Directors for travel and other expenses to attend Board meetings or attend to other Board business as a business expense, and TCF occasionally holds Board retreats at a remote location and pays Directors’ travel and lodging expenses incurred in connection with the meeting, as well as those of the Directors’ spouses or significant others.