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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5377 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5377

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend and modify certain 
  authorities and requirements relating to the Department of Veterans 
                    Affairs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 2023

  Mr. Murphy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend and modify certain 
  authorities and requirements relating to the Department of Veterans 
                    Affairs, 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. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY CLARIFICATION OF LICENSURE 
              REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTOR MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS TO 
              PERFORM MEDICAL DISABILITY EXAMINATIONS FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS UNDER PILOT PROGRAM FOR USE OF CONTRACT 
              PHYSICIANS FOR DISABILITY EXAMINATIONS.

    Section 2002(a)(4) of the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. 
Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 (Public Law 
116-315; 38 U.S.C. 5101 note) is amended by striking ``three years'' 
and inserting ``five years''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN RELIEF FOR 
              RECIPIENTS OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS EDUCATIONAL 
              ASSISTANCE AFFECTED BY CLOSURE OR DISAPPROVAL OF 
              EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION.

    Section 3699(c)(2)(C) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``September 30, 2023'' and inserting ``September 30, 
2025''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.

    Section 8117(g) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2023'' and inserting ``2028''.

SEC. 4. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN HOUSING LOAN FEES.

    The loan fee table in section 3729(b)(2) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``November 14, 2031'' each place it 
appears and inserting ``November 15, 2031''.
                                 <all>
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BYRON HIBBERT,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

A. P. KANE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 06-56839

D.C. No. 2:04-cv-00504-SJO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Byron Hibbert appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Hibbert contends that the Board’s 2001 decision to deny him parole violated

his due process rights because it was not supported by “some evidence” of

FILED

FEB 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 06-56839

dangerousness after he is deported. After briefing was completed in this case, this

court held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the

denial of parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2010)

(en banc). Now the Supreme Court has held that the only federal right at issue in

the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the

inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. See

Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863 (2011) (per curiam). Hibbert received all

of the process to which he was due. See id. at 862. Accordingly, a COA cannot

issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2).

Further, because Hibbert has not has made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. See id.

DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 32.01





CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, David DeMarco, 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 Blacksands Petroleum, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended April 30, 2011 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc.





Date: June 14, 2011
By:
/s/ David DeMarcoName:
David DeMarcoTitle:
Chief Executive Officer




I, Donald Giannattasio, 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 Blacksands Petroleum, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended April 30, 2011 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc.


Date: June 14, 2011
By:
/s/ Donald GiannattasioName:
Donald GiannattasioTitle:
Chief Financial Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6133

SA Recycling LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Yearly Report of Southern Energy Homes, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending January 3, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
L. Stariha, 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, to the best of my 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ JAMES L. STARIHA
James L. Stariha
Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Southern Energy Homes, Inc., and will be retained by Southern Energy
Homes, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request. This statement is submitted as accompanying this report on Form
10-K and is not filed as a part hereof, in accordance with Securities and
Exchange Commission Release 34-47551 (March 21, 2003).
#### Wallace JOSLIN, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 102-87.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Nov. 9, 1988.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1988.

S. Michael McColloch, David M. Coody, Dallas, for appellant.

John Vance, Dist. Atty., and Michael A. Klein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appeal is taken from a conviction for the offense of murder. After finding appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment at life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.

On direct appeal, appellant argued the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the law concerning good time and parole, inasmuch as the charge is predicated upon an unconstitutional statute. The Court of Appeals rejected appellant’s challenge to Article 37.07, § 4, V.A.C.C.P. *Joslin v. State,*722 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986).

In his petition for discretionary review, appellant urges the Court of Appeals erred in holding Article 37.07, § 4, supra, is constitutional. We find appellant is correct.

In *Rose v. State,*752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), this Court determined that Article 37.07, § 4, is unconstitutional. Under *Rose,*supra, if a harmless error analysis is necessary, such analysis should be conducted under the guidelines of Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(2).

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and this cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6820

Omron Management Center of America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

Carolyn E. O’Connor, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 20-547 (UNA)

)

 )

S.O.M.E., et. al., )

 )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the plaintiff’s pro se complaint and 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the plaintiff’s application 

and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth 

generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available 

only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount 

in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts 

that bring the suit within the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such 

facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

The plaintiff, who resides in housing provided by S.O.M.E., a non-profit organization in 

the District of Columbia, is “complaining of discrimination, personal injury and monetary loss, 

due primarily to negligence and intentional acts . . . with regard to Plaintiff’s complaints” about 

her living conditions. Compl. at 1. The plaintiff alleges that, as “a Caucasian, aged female,” she 

is “an extreme minority” who “is being harassed [and bullied] by the Black-American tenants” 

and “by management” in the building where she lives, yet the defendants have ignored or otherwise 
2

failed to respond to her concerns. See id. at 1-2. Id. Further, it appears that she may face eviction 

for her alleged violations of the terms of her lease. See id. at 2. The plaintiff demands $400 million 

in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages. Id. at 2.

The plaintiff has neither identified the basis of federal jurisdiction nor alleged sufficient 

facts to state a federal claim against the private defendants. In addition, the complaint does not 

allege any facts about the parties’ citizenship for the purpose of determining whether the Court has 

diversity jurisdiction. See Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991)

(it is a “well-established rule” that in order for an action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship 

requirement must be “assessed at the time the suit is filed”). Therefore, this case will be dismissed. 

A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

 

/s/

AMY BERMAN JACKSON

Date: April 7, 2020 United States District Judge
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

922 

CA 14-00270 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

 

 

SCAN TUBE & STEEL SERVICES, LTD., 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

ALTX, INC., TUBACEX & COTUBES CANADA INC., 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS, 

AND TUBACEX CANADA, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

WEBSTER SZANYI LLP, BUFFALO (KEVIN T. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.

DAMON MOREY LLP, BUFFALO (BRIAN D. GWITT OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS AND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie

County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered April 18, 2013. The order

granted in part and denied in part the motion of defendants for

summary judgment. 

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance

signed by the attorneys for the parties on August 26, 2014,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal and cross appeal are

unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8156]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

First Commerce Corporation, et al.; Formations of; Acquisitions 
by; and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than April 28, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. First Commerce Corporation, New Orleans, Louisiana; to merge 
with Lakeside Bancshares, Inc., Lake Charles, Louisiana, and thereby 
indirectly acquire Lakeside National Bank of Lake Charles, Lake 
Charles, Louisiana.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Genie D. Short, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. CBOT Financial Corporation, New Waverly, Texas; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of CBOT 
Financial Corporation of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware, and thereby 
indirectly acquire Citizens Bank of Texas, N.A., New Waverly, Texas.
    In connection with this application, CBOT Financial Corporation of 
Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware, also has applied to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Citizens Bank of Texas, N.A., New Waverly, Texas.
    2. First Liberty National Bancshares, Inc., Liberty, Texas; to 
become a bank holding company by acquiring an additional 54 percent of 
the voting shares of First Liberty National Bank, Liberty, Texas.
    In connection with this application, Applicant has applied to 
acquire FLNB Shares, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, which will become a 
bank holding company by acquiring Bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 29, 
1995.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-8156 Filed 4-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 99(B)(i)




                                                               February 21, 1997



The Board of Directors
Greenwood Trust Company and
Wilmington Trust Company:

At your request, we have performed the procedure listed below with respect to
the accounting records of Greenwood Trust Company ("GTC"), relating to the
servicing procedures performed by GTC as Servicer under Section 3.06(b) of the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated February 1, 1993, for
Discover Card Trust 1993A.  This report is solely for your information and is
not to be referred to by, or distributed for any purpose to, anyone other than
Wilmington Trust Company as Trustee, Investor Certificateholders, or management
of GTC.  The procedure we performed is as follows:

-    Compared the amounts set forth in each monthly certificate forwarded by
     the Servicer, pursuant to Section 3.04(b) of the Agreement, during the
     calendar year 1996 to the Servicer's computer-generated Monthly
     Preliminary Calculations report, and found them to be in agreement.

Because the above procedure does not constitute an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, we do not express an
opinion on any of the items referred to above.  Had we performed additional
procedures, or had we conducted an audit of the monthly certificates in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, further matters might
have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.  This report
relates only to the items specified above and does not extend to any financial
statements of GTC taken as a whole for any date or period.


/s/

Deloitte & Touche LLP
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 Annual Report of Destination Maternity Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year
ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward M. Krell, Chief Executive 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:



|                                                         |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ EDWARD M. KRELL                                      |  | 
|Edward M. Krell Chief Executive OfficerDecember 15, 2008 |  | 

---



QuickLinks
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7931]

[[Page 16677]]

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[TA-W-30,647]

Amerada Hess Corporation Headquartered in Houston, Texas and 
Operating at Various Locations in the Following States: TA-W-30,647A 
Oklahoma, TA-W-30,647B Louisiana, TA-W-30,647C North Dakota, TA-W-
30,647D Texas (Except Houston); Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance applicable to all workers of the 
subject firm.
    The certification was issued on March 7, 1995 and will soon be 
published in the Federal Register.
    At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New findings show that 
worker separations occurred in other parts of Texas besides Houston.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
properly reflect the correct worker group.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Amerada Hess Corporation, Houston, Texas who were adversely 
affected by increased imports of crude oil.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-30,647 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Amerada Hess Corporation, headquartered in 
Houston, Texas (TA-W-30,647) and operating at various locations in 
the following cited states who became totally or partially separated 
from employment on or after January 17, 1994 are eligible to apply 
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 
1974: TA-W-30,647A Oklahoma, TA-W-30,647B Louisiana, TA-W-30,647C 
North Dakota, TA-W-30,647D Texas, exc Houston''

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of March, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance
[FR Doc. 95-7931 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```