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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5528 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 659
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5528

                          [Report No. 118-258]

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2024

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                            December 2, 2024

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget conduct 
   a review to determine the impact of the lowest price technically 
acceptable source selection process on national security, 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 ``Safe and Smart Federal Purchasing 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REVIEW TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF THE LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY 
              ACCEPTABLE SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

    (a) Review.--The Director shall review the procurement management 
practices of Defense and Civilian agencies to determine whether the 
provisions of section 15.101-2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
have created any national security risk.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act, the Director shall submit a report on the results of the review 
under subsection (a) to--
            (1) the Committee on Oversight and Accountability of the 
        House of Representatives; and
            (2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
        Affairs of the Senate.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Defense and civilian agency.--The term ``Defense and 
        Civilian agency'' has the meaning given the term ``agency'' in 
        section 133 of title 41, United States Code.
            (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
        the Office of Management and Budget.
                                                       Calendar No. 659

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5528

                          [Report No. 118-258]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget conduct 
   a review to determine the impact of the lowest price technically 
acceptable source selection process on national security, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 2, 2024

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Jackson, guardian, *v.*Mathis *et al.*

No. 3056.

October 10, 1922.

Rehearing denied December 15, 1922.

Equitable petition. Bqfore Judge Dickerson. Cook superior court. December 20, 1921.

*R. A. Hendricks,*for plaintiff in error.

*F. K. Wilcox*and *J. J. Murray,*contra. •

Beck, P. J.

1. Under the rulings made in this case when it was here before *(Mathis*v. *Crowley,*146 *Ga.*749, 92 S. E. 213; 149 *Ga.*396, 100 S. E. 379), (where the essential facts of the case were stated), the court did not err in sustaining a general demurrer to the petition as amended.

2. The amendment filed by the petitioner after the decision last above referred to was rendered, and before the judgment of this court was made the judgment of the court below, did not add any new material facts which would take the case out of the .rulings made when the case was here on the last occasion for review and decision.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

Atkinson, and Gilbert, JJ.,

concurring specially, adhere to the dissent formerly made, but concur in the ruling now made that the former decision is the law of the case.
EXHIBIT 10.6(d)

AMENDMENT TO THE

FINLAY ENTERPRISES, INC.

EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION AND STOCK
		PURCHASE PLAN

WHEREAS, Finlay Enterprises, Inc. (the
		Corporation) maintains the Finlay Enterprises, Inc. Executive
		Deferred Compensation and Stock Purchase Plan (the Plan);
		and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Article 12 of the
		Plan, the Corporation may amend the Plan at any time; and

WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to amend
		the Plan to provide for cash awards instead of restricted stock units
		(RSUs) in the event stockholder approval of the extension of the
		Finlay Enterprises, Inc. 1997 Long Term Incentive Plan is not obtained.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended,
		effective February 27, 2007, as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of the
		Plan, all Participant RSUs and Matching RSUs awarded to Participants on April
		25, 2007 shall be automatically forfeited and immediately replaced with the
		cash equivalent, in the event the Corporations stockholders do not extend
		the term of the Finlay Enterprises, Inc. 1997 Long Term Incentive Plan or adopt
		a successor plan. Accordingly, each RSU shall be replaced with a cash amount
		equal to the value of the RSU on the date of forfeiture and the cash amounts
		shall be credited to the Accounts held under the Plan on behalf of the
		Participants on a book entry basis. Interest on the cash amounts shall be
		credited to the Accounts on the first business day of each fiscal quarter
		beginning August 6, 2007 (the Crediting Date) based upon the
		account balances on each Crediting Date through the end of the Deferral Period.
		Interest credited on each Crediting Date shall be calculated using the Fidelity
		Managed Income Portfolio II interest rate on the applicable Crediting Date. The
		cash amounts (including interest) shall be subject to all terms of the Plan
		(including vesting) not inconsistent with this paragraph.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been
		executed this 27th day of February, 2007.



FINLAY ENTERPRISES,
				  INC.By
			 /s/ Arthur E. ReinerArthur E. ReinerChairman and Chief Executive Officer






---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CASON D. CUNNINGHAM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NORM KRAMER, Ex-Director of Coalinga 

State Hospital; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15430 

D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01362-AWI-MJS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2019**

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

California civil detainee Cason D. Cunningham appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal

and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) 

 

* 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

JUN 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 

560-61 (9th Cir. 1997) (dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cunningham’s Fourteenth Amendment 

conditions-of-confinement claim because it would not have been clear to every

reasonable official that detaining Cunningham in the Central Valley, where Valley 

Fever was endemic, was unlawful under the circumstances. See Ashcroft v. alKidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (explaining two-part test for qualified immunity); 

Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 2019) (existing Valley Fever 

cases did not clearly establish a “right to be free from heightened exposure to 

Valley Fever spores”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.2




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 Quarterly Report of  China Health Industries
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ending  September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Xin Sun, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/Xin
      SunXin
      SunChief
      Financial OfficerDate:  November
      16, 2009
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4045

Duravant LLC and Ohlson Packaging: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9916]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION


Notice of Intent To Engage in Compensated Intercorporate Hauling 
Operations

    This is to provide notice as required by 49 U.S.C. 10524(b)(1) that 
the named corporations intend to provide or use compensated 
intercorporate hauling operations as authorized in 49 U.S.C. 10524(b).
    1. The name of the parent corporation is: ProSource, Inc. The 
principal office address of the parent corporation is: 550 Biltmore 
Way, 10th Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33134.
    2. The wholly-owned subsidiary of ProSource, Inc. which will 
participate in the operations is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              State of  
                           Name                            incorporation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ProSource Services Corporation d/b/a ProSource             Delaware.    
 Distribution Services.                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9916 Filed 4-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-M
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 A Better Way Financial Corp. on
Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Daniel
L.  Hodges,  President 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 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/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President, Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


April 19, 2005


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.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 21

<TABLE>

                     JUNUM INCORPORATED CORPORATE STRUCTURE
<CAPTION>

Subsidiaries:


Name                                    State of Incorporation        Percentage of Ownership
----                                    ----------------------        -----------------------
<S>                                     <C>                           <C>
Junum.Com, Inc.                         Nevada                        88.73%

Next Tech, Inc.                         Nevada                        100%

Voleran, Inc.                           Nevada                        100%

Junum Intellectual Property, Inc.       Nevada                        100%

Junum Financial Services, Inc.          Nevada                        100%

Junum Company, Inc.                     Nevada                        100%

Junum Europe, Ltd.                      Nevada                        100%

</TABLE>
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Jerry L. HORN, Respondent.

No. 96-SC-751-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Sept. 26, 1996.

*192
      *ORDER OF SUSPENSION*

The Respondent, Jerry L. Horn, was admitted as a member of the Kentucky Bar Association on motion and order of this Court entered October 1,1974.

On or about February 16, 1996, Jerry Horn, along with others, was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for multiple counts of felony offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2314, which prescribe conspiracy, fraud in the purchase and sale of securities, and interstate transportation of money obtained fraudulently.

On July 30, 1996, Jerry Horn was convicted by jury trial of the three felony counts, and is currently awaiting sentencing.

> SCR 3.166(1) provides,

> Any member of the Kentucky Bar Association who pleads guilty or is convicted by a judge or jury of a felony as defined in KRS 600.080 shall be automatically suspended from the practice of law in this Commonwealth. The suspension shall take effect automatically beginning on the day following the plea of guilty or finding of guilt by a judge or jury or upon the entry of judgment whichever occurs first. The suspension under this rule shall remain in effect until dissolved or superseded by order of this Court.

Respondent has filed a motion to dissolve suspension. As grounds, Respondent notes that he, by counsel, has filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, and a motion for a new trial arguing he should have been entitled to severance. This Court takes notice of the fact that Respondent was found guilty of a felony and denies the motion to dissolve. In the event Respondent is successful on either of the motions, leave of Court will be granted for Respondent to again file a motion to dissolve suspension.

As required by said rule, the Respondent shall immediately notify all clients in writing of the attorney’s inability to continue to represent them and shall furnish copies of all such letters to the Director if he hasn’t already done so. The attorney shall make arrangements to return all active files to the client or new counsel and shall return all unearned attorneys fees and client property to the client and shall advise the Director of such arrangements within the same ten-day period.

Disciplinary proceedings against such attorney shall be initiated by the Inquiry Tribunal pursuant to SCR 3.160, unless already begun or unless the Respondent resigns under terms of disbarment.

Wherefore, Jerry L. Horn having been automatically suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky incident to his conviction of felony offenses, the request of the Kentucky Bar Association for entry of an order memorializing such suspension for the purpose of notice to the members of the legal profession and to the public is granted.

All concur.

STEPHENS, C.J., not sitting.

ENTERED: September 26,1996.

/s/ Joseph E. Lambert DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7375

UT Electronic Controls, 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 and 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
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40139 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE RODRIGO PENA

- PEREZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:15

- CR

- 1189

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Rodrigo Pena

Perez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Pena

- Perez has fil ed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well
as Pena

- Perez’s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 18 , 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40139 Document: 00513722693 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016No. 16

- 40139

2 appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordi ngly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-40139 Document: 00513722693 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

In connection with this quarterly report of ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Justin C. Ferri, Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date:  August 12, 2011

 

 
| By:    | /s/   JUSTIN C. FERRI                   |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Justin   C. Ferri                       |   |
|   | Chief   Executive Officer and President |   |
|   | (Principal   Executive Officer)         |   |

 

----
**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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Finlay Fine Jewelry Corporation (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended February 3, 2007 (the “Report”) that:

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date: April 19, 2007

 

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|
|        |   |   | /s/ Arthur E. Reiner |
|   |   |   | Arthur E. ReinerChairman and Chief Executive Officer |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

 

----