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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5257 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit the expenditure 

of certain grant funds to purchase firearms, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2018 

Mrs. DEMINGS (for herself and Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit 

the expenditure of certain grant funds to purchase firearms, 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 ‘‘Secure Communities 

5 and Safe Schools Act’’. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5257 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EXPENDITURE OF CERTAIN 

2 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS TO 

3 PURCHASE FIREARMS. 

4 Subsection (b) of section 2008 of the Homeland Se5 curity Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 609) is amended by adding 

6 at the end the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(6) FIREARMS.—A grant awarded under sec8 tion 2003 or 2004 may not be used to purchase fire9 arms and firearms accessories, such as ammunition, 

10 including for use by teachers.’’. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 21-1439

___________________________ 

Eric Smith

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

St. Charles County

 Defendant

Clinton Graebner, Officer; Jake Gillett, individual capacity

 Defendants - Appellants

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ 

Submitted: December 27, 2021

Filed: January 24, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM. 

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, St. Charles County Jail (SCCJ) Officers Jake 

Gillet and Clinton Graebner appeal the district court’s summary judgment order 
-2- 

denying them qualified or official immunity on excessive force, battery and medical 

indifference claims asserted by former SCCJ inmate Eric Smith. After de novo 

review, we reverse. See Mallak v. City of Baxter, 823 F.3d 441, 446 (8th Cir. 2016) 

(appellate court may review denial of qualified immunity where record plainly 

forecloses finding of material factual dispute); Walton v. Dawson, 752 F.3d 1109, 

1116 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review). 

We conclude Gillet was entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force

claims. See Jackson v. Gutzmer, 866 F.3d 969, 974 (8th Cir. 2017) (prison officials 

are entitled to consideration of whether good-faith effort to maintain or restore 

discipline was a factor in excessive force claims); see also Hudson v. McMillian, 

503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (prison officials given wide-ranging deference). We likewise

conclude Gillet was entitled to official immunity as to Smith’s claims of battery 

under Missouri law. See Wealot v. Brooks, 865 F.3d 1119, 1129 (8th Cir. 2017) 

(official immunity protects public employees in Missouri from liability for negligent 

discretionary acts, including the use of force, but does not apply to acts done with 

malice or bad faith). And, we find that Graebner was entitled to qualified immunity 

on Smith’s claim that he was deliberately indifference to a serious medical need. 

See Roberts v. Kopel, 917 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2019) (corrections officers 

cannot be expected to recognize serious medical need where trained professionals 

could not); Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2006) (showing of 

deliberate indifference is greater than gross negligence; plaintiff must show the 

defendant knew of excessive risks to health but disregarded them).

Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand for 

findings consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DALE A. COPEMANN, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10cv229-MP-GRJ

BRAIN FUNDENBURG and

EDWARD D. WILKINS, 

Defendants.

____________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated October 3, 2011. (Doc. 12). The parties have been furnished a

copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (doc. 10) is DISMISSED for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Leave to Proceed Informa Pauperis (doc. 9)

is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2011.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00229-MP-GRJ Document 13 Filed 11/03/11 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT  32.02

                           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  Colony  Energy, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"), the
undersigned,  in  the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that  to  his  knowledge:

     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.

Dated:  August  13,  2008

      /s/  Kent  E.  Lovelace,  Jr.
           ------------------------
           Kent  E.  Lovelace,  Jr.,
           Chief  Financial  Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1 GRACECHURCH CARD FUNDING (NO. 5) PLC
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 I, Richard Francis Sommers, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 20-F, and all reports on Form 6-K
containing distribution or servicing
reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this
annual report, of Gracechurch Card
Funding (No. 5) PLC;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the information
in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as
of the last day of the period covered
by this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution
or servicing information required to be
provided to the trustee by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in
these reports is included in these
reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the
activities performed by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement and based upon my
knowledge and the annual compliance
review required under that agreement,
and except as disclosed in the reports,
the servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under that agreement; and5.
    
    The reports disclose all significant
deficiencies relating to the servicers
compliance with the minimum servicing
standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public
accountant, after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers or similar procedure, as set
forth in the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement. By: /s/ Richard Francis SommersName: Richard Francis SommersTitle: DirectorDate: June 21, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                         332,729
<SECURITIES>                                    99,688
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               439,494
<PP&E>                                             540
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  449957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,555
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       205,995
<OTHER-SE>                                     630,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   449,957
<SALES>                                         13,083
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,083
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,447
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,364
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.002)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Quarterly Report of Aldar Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth B. Liebscher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 19th day of November, 2008.  /s/ Kenneth B. Liebscher _____ Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CASE NUMBER: |. |OC R37 Jpn

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

CARLINE CENEUS
a/k/a CARLINE BONTEMPS,
CABIOCH BONTEMPS,
and
WILLY PAUL EDOUARD

MOTION REQUESTING AN ORDER
SEALING THE INDICTMENT.

The United States of America requests this Court to issue an Order sealing the indictment
returned by the grand jury in this case, and in support of this motion states as follows:

1. The defendants have not been arrested as a result of the activities alleged in the
indictment. The current whereabouts of the defendants are unknown and the public revelation of
the indictment could severely hamper law enforcement’s ability to locate and apprehend the
defendant to answer the charges.

2. The United States further moves the Court that the indictment in this case shall
remain sealed until further written Order of this Court, except that the Clerk’s Office shall
provide two certified copies of the indictment to the United States Attorney for the Northern
District of Florida, two certified copies to the United States Marshal for the Northern District of
Florida, and one certified copy to the United States Probation Office for the Northern District of

Florida.

10UsDeF Ind Pn0216


WHEREFORE, in order to arrest the defendant(s) before the indictment is made available
to the public, it is respectfully requested that the Court order the sealing of the indictment
returned in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

THOMAS F. KIRWIN
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

wil, —

F. T. Williams

Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 936219

300 East University Ave, Suite 310
Gainesville, FL 32601

(352) 378-0996

ORDER
The government’s motion is granted.

DONE AND ORDERED this theZZ” day of June, 2010.

DQ PAhetise x77 Gout

UNWED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
J.



### Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the arguments set forth in the writ petition, we conclude that our intervention is unwarranted. NRAP 21(b)(1); 

### Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; 

### Valley Health, 127 Nev. at , 252 P.3d at 678-79; Hetter v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 110 Nev. 513, 520, 874 P.2d 762, 766 (1994) (recognizing that tax returns and financial records are relevant to the matter of punitive damages, not privileged, and discoverable so long as the plaintiff demonstrates "some factual basis" supporting punitive damages). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Hardes

Douglas 

# 01 0 7 

# % j 1 0

cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Kravitz, Schnitzer & Johnson, Chtd. Eighth District Court Clerk
'In light of this order, petitioners' emergency stay motion is denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JAMES WELLS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv382/WS/MD

SR KELLY, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff

commenced this action on October 4, 2010 by filing a civil rights complaint and a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1 & 2). Because both the complaint

and application to proceed in forma pauperis were deficient, this court entered an

order on October 21, 2010 directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint and to

either pay the $350.00 filing fee or correct the deficiency in his in forma pauperis

application, within twenty-eight days. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff was warned that failure to

comply with the order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action. 

Plaintiff did not respond to the order. Accordingly, on December 6, 2010, this

court issued an order directing plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen days, why

this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court. 

(Doc. 5). That deadline has passed, and plaintiff has neither responded to the order,

nor complied with the court’s October 21, 2010 order.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this cause be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s

failure to comply with an order of the court.
Page 2 of 2

2. That the clerk be directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14 day of January, 2011. th

 

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within fourteen days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that

may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of any objections shall be served upon any other parties. Failure to

object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. §

636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 3:10cv382/WS/MD
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DAVID L KING,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-00011-MP -GRJ

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, GILO, E HAND,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 15, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends that this case be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has not

objected to the recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. Plaintiff does have a

pending motion for extension of time to amend the complaint to add the first names of the

Defendants. However, the proposed amendment would not alter the disposition of this case. 

Finding no plain error, it is accordingly

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 15, is ADOPTED

and incorporated herein.

2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Doc. 4, is DISMISSED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of May, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00011-MP-GRJ Document 20 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.01



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, Randy M. Griffin,
Chief Executive Officer of Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc.



|                        |        |                              
|----------------------- | ------ | -----------------------------
|                        | By:    | /s/  RANDY
        M. GRIFFIN
|Date: November 13, 2012 | Name:  | Randy M. Griffin             
|                        | Title: | Chief Executive Officer      



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.
# C_2010126EN.01000201.xml

| 18.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

13 May 2010

2010/C 126/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2587 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 116,99 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4388 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,853 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5306 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4011 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7475 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,416 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,45 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7075 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9538 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1805 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,911 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4006 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,278 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,795 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,754 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7379 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 419,83 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,4324 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,5943 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2536 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 459,1 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0134 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,389 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 37,72 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,687 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2256 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 15,5324 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 56,7315 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2587

JPY

Japanese yen

116,99

DKK

Danish krone

7,4388

GBP

Pound sterling

0,853

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5306

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4011

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7475

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,416

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,45

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7075

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9538

RON

Romanian leu

4,1805

TRY

Turkish lira

1,911

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4006

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,278

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,795

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,754

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7379

KRW

South Korean won

1 419,83

ZAR

South African rand

9,4324

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,5943

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2536

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 459,1

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0134

PHP

Philippine peso

56,389

RUB

Russian rouble

37,72

THB

Thai baht

40,687

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2256

MXN

Mexican peso

15,5324

INR

Indian rupee

56,7315

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2010348EN.01000102.xml

| 21.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6069 — Mitsui Renewable/FCCE/Guzman)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 348/02

On 14 December 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6069. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6069. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2011173EN.01000101.xml

| 11.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/1

---

2011/C 173/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 160, 28.5.2011

OJ C 160, 28.5.2011

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 152, 21.5.2011

OJ C 145, 14.5.2011

OJ C 139, 7.5.2011

OJ C 130, 30.4.2011

OJ C 120, 16.4.2011

OJ C 113, 9.4.2011

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---