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

Calendar No. 513 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6201 

[Report No. 117–171] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 27, 2022 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 

Reported by Mr. MANCHIN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To extend the authority for the establishment of a commemorative work to honor enslaved and free Black persons 

who served in the American Revolution, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Liberty Me5 morial Preservation Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6201 RS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR ESTABLISHMENT 

2 OF COMMEMORATIVE WORK. 

3 Notwithstanding section 8903(e) of title 40, United 

4 States Code, the authority provided by section 2860 of the 

5 Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

6 2013 (division B of Public Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 2164; 

7 40 U.S.C. 8903 note) shall continue to apply through Sep8 tember 30, 2027. 

9 SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

10 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

11 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

12 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

13 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

14 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

15 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro16 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

17 vote on passage. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 513 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6201 

[Report No. 117–171] 

AN ACT 

To extend the authority for the establishment of a 

lution, and for other purposes. Black persons who served in the American Revocommemorative work to honor enslaved and free 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 

Reported without amendment 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvaro PEREZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-50368.

D.C. No. CR 02-01423-IEG.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 4, 2003.*

Decided March 19, 2003.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and JORGENSON, *948District Judge.**

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

The Honorable Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

The government appeals the district court’s decision to grant Appellee Perez-Gonzalez’s motion to suppress evidence gained from a warrantless search. The government argues that the search of the gas tank of Perez-Gonzalez’s vehicle was routine and required no level of suspicion, urging us to revisit our decision in *United States v. Molina-Tarazon,*279 F.3d 709 (9th Cir.2002).

We are bound by our holding in *Molinob-Tarazon*that searches of gas tanks at the United States border are nonroutine searches that require reasonable suspicion. *See Benny v. United States Parole Comm’n,*295 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2002) (this court is bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions). Because the government has waived its argument that the state had reasonable suspicion to search Perez-Gonzalez’s vehicle, we affirm the district court’s order to suppress the government’s evidence. AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited in or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>         
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                           17,521,745        
<SECURITIES>                              0   
<RECEIVABLES>                       554,210   
<ALLOWANCES>                              0   
<INVENTORY>                               0   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 18,241,050   
<PP&E>                           13,278,627   
<DEPRECIATION>                    4,702,296   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   26,827,189   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             2,253,565   
<BONDS>                                   0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0   
<PREFERRED>                               0   
<COMMON>                             68,412   
<OTHER-SE>                       24,505,212   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     26,827,189   
<SALES>                             851,827   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  1,099,787   
<CGS>                               107,676   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     3,835,151   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (2,735,364)  
<INCOME-TAX>                              0   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (2,735,364)  
<DISCONTINUED>                            0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0   
<CHANGES>                                 0   
<NET-INCOME>                     (2,735,364)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (1.21)  
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (1.21)  
                                              
                                                     






</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF PARADYNE NETWORKS, INC.

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 Paradyne Networks, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sean E. Belanger, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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/ Sean E. Belanger                           
|Sean E. Belanger                               
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date: August 9, 2004
#### In re BOURY, INCORPORATED, Debtor. Ormet Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Boury; Michael Boury; Nancy E. Boury; Pearl W. Boury; Boury, Incorporated; 808 Corporation; TJR, Incorporated; Boury Enterprises; Boury Enterprises, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellants, and Wheeling Inn, Incorporated, Defendant.

No. 02-2125.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 20, 2003.

Decided March 25, 2003.

David Wyant, Bailey *&*Wyant, Wheeling, West Virginia; Richard T. Ricketts, *603Ricketts, Co., L.P.A., Columbus, Ohio; Ray Byrd, Schrader Byrd, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellants. Kimberly Luff Wakim, Robert L. Burns, Jr., Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, L.L.P., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting Appellee relief from the automatic stay to pursue a state court action. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Boury, Inc. v. Ormet,*Nos. CA-01-134-5, BK-01-51663, AP-01-5175 (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 23, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 48430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19169]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation


Advisory Board; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. I), notice is hereby given of a meeting 
of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation (SLSDC), to be held from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. (EDT) on 
Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at the Corporation's Administration 
Headquarters, Suite W32-300, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 
DC. The agenda for this meeting will be as follows: Opening Remarks; 
Consideration of Minutes of Past Meeting; Quarterly Report; Old and New 
Business; Closing Discussion; Adjournment.
    Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public but 
limited to the space available. With the approval of the Administrator, 
members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. 
Persons wishing further information should contact, not later than 
Friday, September 12, 2008, Anita K. Blackman, Chief of Staff, Saint 
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-0091.
    Any member of the public may present a written statement to the 
Advisory Board at any time.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on August 14, 2008.
Collister Johnson, Jr.,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-19169 Filed 8-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-61-P
EX-10.4





 Exhibit 10.4 

Chiasma, Inc. 
 140 Kendrick
Street 
 Building C East 

Needham, MA 02494 
 February 14, 2020 

Drew Enamait 
 Re: Amendment to Amended and Restated Executive
Employment Letter 
 Dear Drew: 
 This Amendment (the
“Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Executive Employment Letter dated February 23, 2018 (the “Agreement”) confirms the amended terms and conditions of your employment with Chiasma, Inc. (the
“Company”) effective February 14, 2020. Except as expressly amended herein, the Agreement remains in full effect. Your Non-Competition,
Non-Solicitation, Confidentiality and Assignment Agreement with the Company dated September 23, 2015 is unaltered and unamended by this Amendment and remains in full effect. 

Section 8(e) of the Agreement is hereby amended by: 
  

	 	1.	 Adding, after the phrase “the year in which the Change in Control occurs,” the words “(b-i) your
accrued bonus (if any) with respect to the calendar year in which the Date of Termination occurs, subject to the Board’s assessment of applicable bonus criteria and prorated from the beginning of such year to the Date of Termination”;



  

	 	2.	 Adding, after the words “(a) and (b),” the words “and (b-i)” 



This Amendment constitutes the complete agreement between you and the Company with respect to the subject matter herein and supersedes any prior agreements,
representations or understandings (whether written, oral or implied) between you and the Company with respect to the subject matter herein. 
 Please
acknowledge, by signing below, that you have accepted this Amendment. 
  

					
	Very Truly Yours,	 		 	
			
	/s/ Raj Kannan	 		 	  

	 Raj Kannan
 Chief Executive Officer

Chiasma, Inc.
	 		 	

  

					
	I have read and accept this Amendment:	 		 	
			
	/s/ Drew Enamait	 		 	02/14/2020
	Drew Enamait	 		 	Date
* 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 April 23, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51155 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO RUIZ-PONCE, also known as Francisco Reyes-Ponce,
Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-610-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Francisco Ruiz-Ponce appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ruiz contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Ruiz maintains that he pleaded guilty to anNo. 02-51155 -2- indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Ruiz acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1376

TODD FOX and JANET FOX,

Appellants,

v.

John E. Potter, POSTMASTER GENERAL,

Appellee.

David P. Hendel , Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Of counsel on the brief was Sarah M. Graves , Akerman Senterfitt LLP, of Vienna, Virginia.

David A. Harrington , Senior Trial Counsel, Commerc ial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justic e, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee.

With him on the brief were Tony West , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson

, Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr. , Assistant Director.

Appealed from: United States Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals

Administrative Judge David I. BrochsteinNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1376

TODD FOX and JANET FOX,

Appellants,

v.

John E. Potter, POSTMASTER GENERAL,

Appellee.



# Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals

In CASE NO(S). 6159 and 6169.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (RADER, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED February 17, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly, Clerk
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.7c

                        JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTEL LETTERHEAD

January 27, 2000


CONFIDENTIAL
------------

Mr. Bill Mead
Embassy Suites Greensboro
204 Centreport Drive
Greensboro, NC  27409

Dear Mr. Mead:

As a follow-up to our several telephone conferences, this letter will confirm
our understanding relative to two phases of our agreement:

     A.   During this five-year contractual period, John Q. Hammons and Bill
          Mead will attempt to select a strong market for the purpose of using
          the availability to build 1, 2 or 3 Residence Inn hotel projects. As
          we discussed, the market must be correct as well as the site location.
          The ownership will be 75/25 and all or any equities required can
          perhaps be financed also (at least a substantial portion).

     B.   The sum of $65,000.00 we discussed will be paid at an equal amount on
          a monthly basis on the first of the month, starting April 1, 2000.

     C.   This agreement is terminated if the contract with John Q. Hammons
          Hotels, Inc. is also terminated.

The above items I believe answer the questions and discussion that we had on the
telephone.

                             Respectfully submitted,

                              /s/  John Q. Hammons
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             John Q. Hammons

Witness:


    /s/ Lynn Harman
------------------------


   /s/ Angie Harp
------------------------
Denied and Opinion Filed July 26, 2017 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00603-CV 

No. 05-17-00604-CV 

No. 05-17-00605-CV 

No. 05-17-00606-CV 

IN RE TERRY C. SHELTON, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-20518, F09-73040, F10-21198, and F10-55874 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Francis, Brown, and Whitehill 

Opinion by Justice Whitehill 

Before the Court is relator’s June 6, 2017 petition for writ of mandamus in which relator 

complains of the trial court’s order withdrawing funds from his inmate trust account and failure 

to rule on his motion seeking return of the funds. 

To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that the 

trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. 

Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). The relator has not met 

these requirements because the proper method for seeking appellate review of an order of 

withdrawal of funds from an inmate trust account is by direct appeal of the order, not by 

mandamus. See In re Jones, No. 05-16-00001-CV, 2016 WL 279432, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

Jan. 22, 2016, orig. proceeding) (citing Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 321 (Tex. 2009) 
 –2– 

(“[A]ppellate review should be by appeal, as in analogous civil post–judgment enforcement 

actions.”)). Relator, therefore, has an adequate appellate remedy. As for relator’s request for a 

writ directing the trial court to rule on his motion for return of the withdrawn funds, the trial 

court denied the motion on July 13, 2017, so that request is now moot. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

170603F.P05 

/Bill Whitehill/ 

BILL WHITEHILL 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6132 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6132

     To reauthorize the COPS grant program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 2, 2021

   Mr. Nehls (for himself, Mr. Young, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. 
  Babin, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Mast, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. 
Weber of Texas, Mr. Bost, Mr. Garcia of California, Mr. Murphy of North 
  Carolina, and Mr. Fallon) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To reauthorize the COPS grant program, 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 ``Public Safety Enhancement Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF COPS.

    Section 1001(a)(11) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10261(a)(11)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$1,047,119,000 for 
        each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009'' and inserting 
        ``$5,547,119,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026''; 
        and
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``$4,500,000,000 
        shall be used only for the hiring and retention of law 
        enforcement officers. Of the remaining amount,'' before ``up to 
        3 percent''.
                                 <all>
```
#### William H. Matthews and Margaret T. Matthews, Appellants, v. Thomas Hall, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Ingraham, J., dissented.
EXHIBIT 15



October 31, 1997




Orion Capital Corporation
9 Farm Springs Road
Farmington, CT  06032

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited
interim financial information of Orion Capital Corporation and
subsidiaries for the periods ended September 30, 1997 and 1996, as
indicated in our report dated October 31, 1997; because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on the information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in
your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
1997, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 2-
65348 on Form S-8 and S-16 relating to the Orion Capital Corporation
1976 and 1979 Stock Option Plans, No. 2-80636 on Form S-8 relating to
the Orion Capital Corporation 1982 Long-Term Performance Incentive
Plan, No. 2-63344 on Form S-8 relating to the Orion Capital
Corporation Employees' Stock Savings and Retirement Plan and No. 33-
59847 on Form S-8 relating to the Orion Capital Corporation 1994 Stock
Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule
436(c) under the Securities Act, is not considered a part of the
Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a
report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
                                  Page 27