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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5948 

To terminate the Office of Gun Violence Prevention in the Executive Office 

of the President and prohibit the establishment of any similar successor 

office, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 12, 2023 

Mr. ROSENDALE (for himself, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. HIGGINS of 

Louisiana, Mr. BURLISON, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, Mr. 

CRANE, Mr. DUNCAN, and Mr. COLLINS) introduced the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To terminate the Office of Gun Violence Prevention in the 

Executive Office of the President and prohibit the establishment of any similar successor office, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5948 IH

1 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE OFFICE OF GUN VIO2 LENCE PREVENTION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Office of Gun Violence Pre4 vention in the Executive Office of the President shall be 

5 terminated as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

6 (b) PROHIBITION ON SUCCESSOR OFFICES.—The 

7 President may not establish any successor office to the 

8 Office of Gun Violence Prevention. 

9 (c) LIMIT USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.—No Federal 

10 funds may be obligated or expended for the salaries or 

11 expenses of any officer or employee of an office described 

12 in subsection (a) or (b). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12109]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--the Frame Relay Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 29, 1996, pursuant to 
Sec. 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Frame Relay Forum 
(``Forum''), has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, the changes are as follows: Cellstream Networks, Inc., 
Sarasota, FL; Comsat Corporation, Clarksburg, MD; Digital Equipment 
Corporation, Berks, UNITED KINGDOM; Hekemian Laboratories, Inc., 
Rockville, MD; and InComA, Ltd, Moscow RUSSIA; have been added as 
members to the venture. Nortel DASA, Friedrichs Hafem, GERMANY has been 
added as an affiliate member. Loral Data Systems, Sarasota, FL; and 
Defense Research Agency, Malvern, Worcestershire, UNITED KINGDOM have 
been dropped as members of the venture.
    On April 10, 1992, the Forum filed its original notification 
pursuant to Sec. 6(b) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Sec. 6(b) of the Act on July 
2, 1992 (57 FR 29537). The last notification was filed on December 27, 
1995. A notice was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 
1996 (61 FR 6389).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-12109 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### Howard *v.*Sills & Purvis.

No. 3055.

November 15, 1922.

The Court of Appeals certified for decision the following question (in Case No. 12573), as necessary for a proper determination of the case: *“*Where property is listed by an owner for sale through a real-estate broker at a stipulated price and commission, without anything being said as to terms of payment, and where the broker procures a purchaser who is ready, willing, and able, and who through the broker actually offers, to buy at the price named, *431but only on terms, other than all cash, such as might be mutually agreed upon with the owner, are the commissions earned, where the owner refuses to meet such purchaser, for the sole reason assigned that he wishes to withdraw the property from sale ? ” .

*430Atkinson, J.

1; Generally a broker’s commissions are earned when, during the agency, he • finds a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy, and who actually offers to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner. Civil Code (1910), § 3587. An offer by the proposed purchaser to buy on terms not stipulated by the owner will not entitle the broker to his commissions.

2. As a general rule, where property is listed by an owner for sale through a real-estate broker at a stipulated price and commission, without anything being said as to terms of payment, the contract is to be construed as authority to the broker to sell for cash alone. 9 C. J. 526, § 27; 4 R. C. L. 257, § 11, 4 R. C. L. 262, § 14.

3. Where property is listed as indicated in the preceding note and the broker procures a purchaser who is ready, willing, and able, and who through the broker actually offers, to buy at the price named, but only on terms, other than all cash, such as might be agreed upon with the owner, and the owner refuses to meet the purchaser, assigning as the sole reason therefor that he wishes to withdraw the property from sale, the commissions of the broker are not earned.

4. The rulings announced in the preceding notes sufficiently 'answer the question propounded by the Court of Appeals.

*All the Justices concur.*

*431*B. L. Maynard,*for plaintiff in error.

*Shipp & Sheppard,*contra.
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.

I, Douglas G. Bergeron,
Chief Executive Officer, and I, Robert Dykes, Chief Financial Officer, each certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment No. 1 to report of VeriFone
Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2012 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/ Douglas G. BergeronDouglas G. BergeronChief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Robert DykesRobert DykesExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: April 10, 2012

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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 EarthBlock Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Gregory A. Pitner, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of
      the
      Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.




**EarthBlock
                Technologies, Inc**Date: April
                12, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Gregory
                A. PitnerChief
                Executive Officer
#### Shaundell WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49083.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 5, 1994.

Laura G. Martin, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, C.J., and FENNER and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the dismissal of a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Christopher S. GUTHRIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48813.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 4, 1994.

Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher S. Guthrie appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of W.  S.  INDUSTRIES,  INC.  (the
"COMPANY") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  NOVEMBER 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "REPORT"),  I,
James F. Dempsey,  President and Chief Executive Officer,  respectively,  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 my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  January 19, 2007
                                             By: /s/ JAMES F. DEMPSEY
                                                ------------------------
                                                James F. Dempsey
                                                Chief Financial  Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11060

Summary Calendar

MOHAMED MAHDI ABDULKADIR,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BRUCE P. SADLER, Assistant District Attorney,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CV-33

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mohamed Abdulkadir, Texas prisoner # 1529001, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal, as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, of his pro se 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in which he alleged that Bruce P. Sadler, Assistant 

District Attorney for Potter County, Texas, unconstitutionally denied him 

DNA testing or review of previously performed testing, and denied him 

* 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

June 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-11060 Document: 00513063174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2015
No. 14-11060

appointment of counsel. Abdulkadir sought the DNA testing to challenge his 

2008 Texas conviction of felony aggravated sexual assault of a child.

No freestanding federal constitutional right exists for a convicted 

individual to obtain evidence for post-conviction DNA testing, but Texas has 

established such a right under state law. Dist. Att’y’s Office for Third Jud. 

Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 67-73 (2009). To state a claim for relief under 

§ 1983 as to that state law, Abdulkadir must show that the Texas statutory 

scheme, as applied to him, violated his due process rights. See Skinner v. 

Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1297-98 (2011).

Abdulkadir argues that the district court erred in dismissing his 

complaint because material factual issues remain unresolved, specifically, his

need for DNA evidence to prove his innocence. Additionally, he asserts that 

the district court made improper credibility determinations and that Sadler 

denied him DNA evidence at trial and on appeal in violation of his due process 

rights. Abdulkadir fails to identify any unconstitutionality in the Texas 

statutory scheme for providing convicted prisoners access to DNA testing, 

much less identify the unconstitutional element of that scheme as applied to 

him. See Skinner, 131 S. Ct. at 1297-98. Thus, he has shown no error in the 

district court’s determination that he failed to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 

2005).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-11060 Document: 00513063174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2015
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 22029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11818]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on C4ISR Integration; Notice of 
Advisory Committee Meeting

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on C4ISR Integration will 
meet in closed session on May 29, 1996 at Strategic Analysis, Inc., 
Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will assist the internal DoD process by providing advice to the 
DoD on all aspects of C4ISR integration.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c) (1) (1988), and that accordingly this 
meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: May 7, 1996.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 96-11818 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-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.

I, Douglas G. Bergeron,
Chief Executive Officer, and I, Robert Dykes, Chief Financial Officer, each certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the report of VeriFone Holdings, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/    DOUGLAS G.
BERGERONDouglas G. BergeronChief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/     ROBERT
DYKESRobert DykesSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: March 5, 2010

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Rolande Telemaque, Doing Business as Telemaque’s, Appellant, v New York Property Insurance Underwriting Association, Respondent.

In an action to recover the proceeds of a fire insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), entered November 29, 1988, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the second, third and fourth causes of action asserted in the complaint, and which denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

*445Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On appeal the plaintiff argues primarily one point: that the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff an opportunity to seek punitive damages from the defendant. The plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages is premised on its allegations that the defendant engaged in a pattern of unfair claim settlement practices. The courts have repeatedly recognized that since unfair claim settlement practices may be redressed by administrative action pursuant to the Insurance Law, there is no need to recognize private causes of action for punitive damages *(see, Roldan v Allstate Ins. Co.,*149 AD2d 20; *Kent Centre Assocs. v Greater N. Y. Mut. Ins. Co.,*139 AD2d 630; *Mavroudis v State Wide Ins. Co.,*121 AD2d 433, 434; *Kurrus v CNA Ins. Co.,*115 AD2d 593; *Royal Globe Ins. Co. v Chock Full O’Nuts Corp.,*86 AD2d 315; *Cohen v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn.,*65 AD2d 71). The Supreme Court was therefore correct in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss so much of the complaint as sought punitive damages, and in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.CERT(i)


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



     In connection with the Annual Report of Air Test Technology, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, "S"
Douglas Henderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 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/ "S" Douglas Henderson
                             ------------------------
                              "S" Douglas Henderson
                             Chief Executive Officer (or the equivalent thereof)
                             March 10, 2003
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3922

_____________________________

SARINA MARIE YOUNG,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie Kinsey, Judge.

October 10, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
O rder filed November 2, 201 7



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 200

- C V

__________
IN THE INTEREST OF L.R.R., A CHILD

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Midland County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. FM 60,640

O R D E R

T h is parental termination appeal has be come unduly stalled due to the failure

of Trina Talbott Finnell , the court reporter for the Midland County Court at Law , to prepare and file in this court the supplemental reporter’s record

. 1 The reporter’s

record from the trial on the merits was timely filed by court reporter Cathy Cummins. However, Finnell was the court reporter at a subsequent hearing regarding the parents’ entitlement to a de novo jury trial. Accordi ng to the parents’ attorneys, at the end of the September 27, 2017 hearing, they requested that Finnell prepare the

1 This appeal is accelerated, and so far as reasonably possible, this court must ensure that the appeal is brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.4; T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2(a).2

reporter’s record. Finnell refuse d to prepare the record from that hearing until she is paid for doing so . The father’s attorney explained to Finnell that the trial court
determined the parents to be indigent and that, therefore, the parents are entitled to
have the record prepared at no cost to them. The parents’ attorneys are correct. Because the paren ts are indigent, they “cannot be required to pay costs,” includ ing “fees charged by the clerk or court reporter for preparation of the appellate record.” T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 145 (a), (c) ; see also

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(b). By this order, Trina Talbott Finnel l i s ORDERED to file the supplemental
reporter’s record in this cause on or before 5:00 p.m. on Monday, Nov ember 13 , 201 7

. Furthermore, because this is an appeal in a parental termination case, the trial

court shall direct Finnell “to immediately commence the preparation of the reporter’s record” or “arrange for a substitute reporter, if necessary.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

28.4 (b)(1)

.

PER CURIAM

November 2, 201 7

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 91 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11557]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 042596B]


Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NOAA, Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of modification to permit no. 778 (P772#59).

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that on [leave blank for date stamp] 
Permit No. 778, issued to The National Marine Fisheries Service, 
Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA 92038, was modified.

ADDRESSES: The modification and related documents are available for 
review upon written request or by appointment in the following 
office(s):
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Suite 13130 Silver Spring, 
MD 20910 (301/713-2289);
    Director, Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 501 
West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 (310/980-
4001); and
    Coordinator, Pacific Area Office, Southwest Region, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, 2570 Dole Street, Room 106, Honolulu, HI 96822-2396 
(808/973-2987).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject modification has been issued 
under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the provisions of Sections 216.33(d) 
and (3) of the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine 
Mammals (50 CFR Part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the provisions of Section 222.25 
of the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of 
endangered fish and wildlife (50 CFR Part 222).
    The permittee is authorized to increase the number of seals 
authorized to be retagged under the permit from 250 to 500. This 
modification involves no increase in the originally authorized take of 
1200 monk seals.

    Dated: April 29, 1996.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits & Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources.
[FR Doc. 96-11557 Filed 5-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F