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

1ST SESSION H. R. 475 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include 

vaccines against seasonal influenza within the definition 

of taxable vaccines. 

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

•HR 475 EH

1 SECTION 1. ADDITION OF VACCINES AGAINST SEASONAL 

2 INFLUENZA TO LIST OF TAXABLE VACCINES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (N) of section 

4 4132(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

5 amended by inserting ‘‘or any other vaccine against sea6 sonal influenza’’ before the period. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

8 (1) SALES, ETC.—The amendment made by this 

9 section shall apply to sales and uses on or after the 

10 later of— 

11 (A) the first day of the first month which 

12 begins more than 4 weeks after the date of the 

13 enactment of this Act, or 

14 (B) the date on which the Secretary of 

15 Health and Human Services lists any vaccine 

16 against seasonal influenza (other than any vac17 cine against seasonal influenza listed by the 

18 Secretary prior to the date of the enactment of 

19 this Act) for purposes of compensation for any 

20 vaccine-related injury or death through the Vac21 cine Injury Compensation Trust Fund. 

22 (2) DELIVERIES.—For purposes of paragraph 

23 (1) and section 4131 of the Internal Revenue Code 

24 of 1986, in the case of sales on or before the effec25 tive date described in such paragraph for which de-
3 

•HR 475 EH

1 livery is made after such date, the delivery date shall 

2 be considered the sale date. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 18, 2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 475 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

the definition of taxable vaccines. include vaccines against seasonal influenza within
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10915

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

LUIS ANGEL LOPEZ, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-01592-SDM-AEP

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-10915 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10915

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Luis Lopez, pro se, appeals the denial of a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action. He previously, 

through counsel, appealed the § 2255 judgment and we denied a 

COA in appeal no. 23-13259. 

To the extent that Lopez is again challenging the district 

court’s denial of his § 2255 motion and a COA, the appeal is untimely. He had until November 10, 2023—60 days after the district 

court’s September 11, entry of final judgment—to challenge the final order and judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(B). However, he did not file his pro se notice of appeal until

March 8, 2024. Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and 

cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that the timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement, and we cannot entertain an appeal that is out of time). 

Additionally, a new challenge to the final order and judgment would be duplicative of appeal no. 23-13259, and therefore, 

not properly before us. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 

449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981) (providing that a party “must ordinarily 

raise all claims of error in a single appeal following final judgment 

on the merits”); I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 

1541, 1551-52 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting that we have inherent administrative power to dismiss duplicative litigation to avoid wasting 

USCA11 Case: 24-10915 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 2 of 3
24-10915 Opinion of the Court 3

judicial resources). Further, any challenge to the district court’s or 

our denial of a COA is procedurally improper. See Pruitt v. United 

States, 274 F.3d 1315, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that the procedurally proper course of action for a party denied a COA by the 

district court is to file a renewed application for a COA with us); 

11th Cir. 27-2 (providing that a party seeking to challenge our denial of a COA may file a motion for reconsideration with us within 

21 days of the order’s entry). 

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack 

of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. No 

petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.

USCA11 Case: 24-10915 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2024 Page: 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FAYE ZHENXING 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE GOVERNMENT OF 

THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC 

OF CHINA 

Defendant(s). 

Civil Case No. 08-2228 (RJL) 

ORDER 

F or the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, this 

()- I~ day of January 2010, hereby 

ORDERED that plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, and it is 

further 

ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [# 3] is DISMISSED as 

moot. 

This is a final appealable Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). 

SO ORDERED. 

\ 

~~ON United States District Judge
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.106
                                    AMENDMENT


The Consulting Agreement dated March 28, 2000 with an effective date of April 1,
2000 and amended on May 31, 2001, between Sunrise Assisted Living, Inc. (the
"Company") and David W. Faeder (the "Consultant") has been amended as follows:

Section 2 will now read as follows:

          2.   COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES.

               The Company agrees to pay the consultant during the term of the
               Agreement at the rate of $190,000 per year, payable in equal
               monthly installments on the first day of each month during the
               term of the Agreement (and equitably prorated for any partial
               months during the term of this Agreement) and up to $137,500 in
               additional bonuses payable quarterly or at certain milestones to
               be determined.

This Amendment is effective April 1, 2002.



Attest:                                      SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING, INC.



  /s/ Amy Kunselman                          By: /s/ Paul J. Klaassen
  -----------------------                       ------------------------------

                                                   Paul J. Klaassen
                                                   Chairman of the Board and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer



                                             CONSULTANT



                                                /s/ David W. Faeder
                                             ---------------------------------

                                                      David W. Faeder
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-10516

Summary Calendar

 

GERALD L. BRUMLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;

MARIE C. KALB, Claims Manager for the 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:94-CV-1288-D

- - - - - - - - - -

May 22, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerald L. Brumley contends that the district court erred in

concluding that his lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of res

judicata. Four conditions must be satisfied to apply the

doctrine. “First, the parties in a later action must be

identical to (or at least be in privity with) the parties in a

prior action. Second, the judgment in the prior action must have
been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Third, the

prior action must have concluded with a final judgment on the

merits. Fourth, the same claim or cause of action must be

involved in both suits.” United States v. Shanbaum, 10 F.3d 305,

310 (5th Cir. 1994)(internal citations omitted). The Eight

Circuit was a court of competent jurisdiction and it rendered a

final judgment in the prior case. See Brumley v. United States

Dep’t of Labor, 28 F.3d 746, 746-48 (8th Cir. 1994), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 734 (1995). 

Both suits arise from the Departmentr of Labor’s decision

not to give effect to Brumley's election of benefits because he

did not complete form CA-8. See Slaughter v. AT&T Information

Systems, Inc., 905 F.2d 92, 93-94 (5th Cir 1990); Agrilectric

Power Partners, Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 20 F.3d 663, 664

(5th Cir. 1994).

On appeal, Brumley does not challenge the district court

conclusion that Kalb was in privity with the Department of Labor

as their employee. As this issue was not discussed in the brief,

it is deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). This court

"will not raise and discuss legal issues that [an appellant] has

failed to assert." Id. 

The Department of Labor’s motion to supplement the record is

denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2059-1    Filed: 05/16/19    Entered: 05/16/19 16:56:13    Page 1of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4829 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4829

 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
with respect to high priority corridors on the National Highway System, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2014

 Mr. Butterfield (for himself, Mr. Jones, Mr. Price of North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Meadows, and Mrs. Ellmers) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
with respect to high priority corridors on the National Highway System, 
                        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 ``Route to Opportunity And Development 
Act of 2014'' or the ``ROAD Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

    (a) In General.--Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by striking paragraph 
(13) and inserting the following:
            ``(13) Raleigh-Norfolk Corridor from Raleigh, North 
        Carolina, through Rocky Mount, Williamston, and Elizabeth City, 
        North Carolina, to Norfolk, Virginia.''.
    (b) Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate System.--
Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by inserting ``subsection (c)(13),'' 
after ``subsection (c)(9),''.
                                 <all>
```
exv10w34






Exhibit 10.34









February 5, 2009




Lawrence Pemble

Chief Financial Officer

Chindex International, Inc.

4340 East West Highway, Suite 1100

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

By Facsimile: 301 215 7719




Chindex International — IFC Investment # 26133: Amendatory Letter No. 1




Dear Mr. Pemble,



1. Reference is made to the Loan Agreement dated December 10, 2007 (the “Loan Agreement”), by and
among Chindex International, Inc. (the “Company”) and International Finance Corporation (“IFC”).
Capitalized terms are not defined in this Amendatory Letter and shall have the same meanings
accorded to them in the Loan Agreement.



2. Contingent on DEG also extending its first Disbursement Cut-Off date in the same manner, the
parties hereby agree to extend the deadline for first Disbursement referred to in Section 2.12 (a)
(i) of the Loan Agreement until February 1, 2010 and to amend the Loan Agreement as set forth
below.



3. Section 2.12 (a) (i) is hereby amended as follows:




     2.12 (a) (i) if the first Disbursement to such Onshore Borrower has not been made by February
1, 2010, or such other later date as the parties agree;


4. Please acknowledge your agreement and acceptance of the foregoing by countersigning the enclosed
duplicates of this Amendatory Letter in the space provided below and returning two (2) executed
originals to IFC.




Yours sincerely,



Colin J. Warren

Senior Manager

Asia Portfolio — Manufacturing, Agribusiness, Health & Education




14Th Floor, One Pacific Place, 88 Queensway, Admiralty, Hong Kong Phone: (852)2509-8100.
Facsimile: (852)2509-9363




 









 





-2-




Amendment accepted and agreed for an on behalf of the Company:

Chindex International, Inc.




By: /s/ Lawrence Pemble                    

Name: Lawrence Pemble

Title: EVP + CFO
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4919 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

715 Shawan Falls Drive in Dublin, Ohio, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Wesley 

G. Davids and Captain Nicholas J. Rozanski Memorial Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2014 

Mr. TIBERI (for himself, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. 

JORDAN, Mr. LATTA, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. GIBBS, Ms. KAPTUR, 

Mr. TURNER, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. JOYCE, Mr. STIVERS, 

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

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 715 Shawan Falls Drive in Dublin, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Wesley G. Davids and Captain 

Nicholas J. Rozanski Memorial Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL WESLEY G. DAVIDS AND 

4 CAPTAIN NICHOLAS J. ROZANSKI MEMORIAL 

5 POST OFFICE. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

7 Postal Service located at 715 Shawan Falls Drive in DubVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:12 Jun 25, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4919.IH H4919

jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4919 IH

1 lin, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance 

2 Corporal Wesley G. Davids and Captain Nicholas J. 

3 Rozanski Memorial Post Office’’. 

4 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg5 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

6 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

7 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Wes8 ley G. Davids and Captain Nicholas J. Rozanski Memorial 

9 Post Office’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50193

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAIME ANTONIO JUAREZ-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-1878-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jaime Antonio Juarez-Perez appeals the 46-month within-guidelines 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after 

having been previously deported. He argues that his indictment did not allege 

that he had a prior conviction and that, therefore, his sentence under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b) violates his due process rights by exceeding the two-year statutory 

maximum provided by § 1326(a). He concedes that this argument is foreclosed 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 17, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50193 Document: 00514799354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2019
No. 18-50193

2

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, he seeks 

to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, 

subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider 

this issue.

In Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 239-47, the Supreme Court held that, 

for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a 

fact that must be alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a 

reasonable doubt. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court 

decisions did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See, e.g., United States v. 

Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of Alleyne v. 

United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 

624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 

530 U.S. 466 (2000)). Thus, Juarez-Perez’s argument is foreclosed, and 

summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 

406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Government’s unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is 

DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-50193 Document: 00514799354 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2019
APPENDIX A: ACTIONS OF THE

APRIL 8, 2019, MEETING OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS

VOTED that the Board of Regents presents to Dr. David J. Skorton the Joseph Henry Medal in 

recognition of his manifold contributions as the 13th Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. 

[2019.04.01]

VOTED that the Board of Regents approves the 2019 proposed committee member 

assignments for Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard and Representative John Shimkus, and 

requests that the Chancellor make the necessary appointments. [2019.04.02]

VOTED that the Board of Regents approves the Compensation and Human Resources 

Committee’s 2019 compensation recommendation for a senior executive position. 

[2019.04.03]

VOTED that the Board of Regents adopts the Consent Agenda, which constitutes the approval 

of all action items listed therein. [2019.04.04]

VOTED that the Board of Regents approves the minutes of the January 28, 2019, 

meeting of the Board of Regents.

VOTED that the Board of Regents approves the proposed slate of candidates for 

appointment or reappointment to six (6) Smithsonian advisory boards.

VOTED that the Board of Regents recognizes the generosity of the Hillside Foundation, 

Inc. to the National Air and Space Museum and accepts the gift and names the Allan and 

Shelley Holt Innovations Gallery for 13 years from the date the gallery opens to the 

public.

VOTED that the Board of Regents recognizes the generosity of John and Adrienne Mars 

to the Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute and names 

Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute director position the John 

and Adrienne Mars Director, Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology 

Institute.

VOTED that the Board of Regents recognizes the generosity of Target Enterprise, Inc. 

and accepts the terms of the sponsorship agreement. 

VOTED that the Board of Regents creates a quasi-endowment for the benefit of 

Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute to support animal care 

and authorizes the transfer of the funds identified for this purpose.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2381

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to include additional information

in social security account statements.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 7, 2000

Mr. MCCAIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to include

additional information in social security account statements.

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 ‘‘Straight Talk on Social

5 Security Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. MATERIAL TO BE INCLUDED IN SOCIAL SECURITY

7 ACCOUNT STATEMENT.

8 Section 1143(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42

9 U.S.C. 1320b–13(a)(2)) is amended—

10 (1) in subparagraph (C) by striking ‘‘and’’;
2

•S 2381 IS

1 (2) in subparagraph (D) by striking the period

2 and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

3 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub4 paragraph:

5 ‘‘(E)(i) as determined by the Chief Actuary of

6 the Social Security Administration—

7 ‘‘(I) a comparison of the annual social se8 curity tax inflows (including amounts appro9 priated under subsections (a) and (b) of section

10 201 of this Act and section 121(e) of the Social

11 Security Amendments of 1983 (26 U.S.C. 401

12 note)) to the amount paid in benefits annually;

13 and

14 ‘‘(II) a statement whether the ratio de15 scribed in subclause (I) will result in a cash

16 flow deficit and what year any such deficit will

17 commence, as well as the first year in which

18 funds in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors In19 surance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability

20 Insurance Trust Fund will cease to be sufficient

21 to cover any such deficit and the percentage of

22 benefits due at that time that could be paid

23 from the annual social security tax inflows (as

24 that term is used in subclause (I));
3

•S 2381 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) an explanation that states in substance

2 that the Trust Funds balances reflect resources au3 thorized by Congress to pay future social security

4 benefits, but do not consist of real economic assets

5 that can be used in the future to fund benefits, and

6 that such balances are claims against the United

7 States Treasury that, when redeemed, must be fi8 nanced through increased taxes, public borrowing,

9 benefit reduction, or elimination of other Federal ex10 penditures; and

11 ‘‘(iii) an explanation, in simple and easily un12 derstood terms, of the average rate of return that a

13 taxpayer can expect to receive on old-age insurance

14 benefits as compared to the total amount of social

15 security taxes a taxpayer expects to pay, including

16 the inflation-adjusted average rate of return for

17 workers born in every year beginning with 1900, set

18 out in chart or graph form, with an explanatory cap19 tion or legend, as determined by the Chief Actuary

20 of the Social Security Administration.’’.

Æ
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2016 Filed: 05/15/19 Entered: 05/15/19 15:39:36 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2016 Filed: 05/15/19 Entered: 05/15/19 15:39:36 Page 2 of

2
#### Esther S. Stanfield, as Administratrix, etc., of Frederick Stanfield, Deceased, Appellant, v. Town of Hamburg, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., who dissented upon the ground that the questions of negligence and of freedom from contributory negligence are questions of fact for the jury.