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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6839 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6839

To prohibit agencies of the Federal Government from evaluating bids and 
 proposals on the basis of information related to noncompliance with a 
  Federal contractor COVID-19 vaccine mandate, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2022

    Mr. Hill (for himself, Mr. Mann, and Mr. Comer) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit agencies of the Federal Government from evaluating bids and 
 proposals on the basis of information related to noncompliance with a 
  Federal contractor COVID-19 vaccine mandate, 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 ``Protecting the Future of America's 
Federal Contractors Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EVALUATING BIDS AND PROPOSALS ON BASIS OF 
              INFORMATION RELATED TO NONCOMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL 
              CONTRACTOR COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATE.

    (a) Prohibition.--With respect to a bid or proposal for a contract 
with an agency of the Federal Government for the procurement of a good 
or service, the head of such agency may not, on the basis of COVID-19 
Federal contractor vaccine mandate noncompliance information--
            (1) in evaluating the past performance of the offeror of 
        such bid or proposal, unfavorably evaluate the offeror; or
            (2) exclude the offeror from being awarded the contract.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) COVID-19 federal contractor vaccine mandate 
        noncompliance information.--The term ``COVID-19 Federal 
        contractor vaccine mandate noncompliance information'' means, 
        with respect to the offeror, or any subcontractor disclosed by 
        the offeror in the bid or proposal, information relating to 
        compliance with a COVID-19 Federal contractor vaccine mandate, 
        including information related to the termination of a contract 
        with the Federal Government, or subcontract thereof at any 
        tier, for the failure to comply with a Federal contractor 
        vaccine mandate.
            (2) Federal contractor covid-19 vaccine mandate.--The term 
        ``Federal contractor COVID-19 vaccine mandate'' means a 
        requirement by the Federal Government for any employee of a 
        contractor of the Federal Government, or employee of a 
        subcontractor thereof at any tier, to receive vaccination 
        against infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 15









Pennsylvania Power Company
1 E. Washington Street
P. O. Box 891
New Castle, Pennsylvania 16103

Gentlemen:

We are aware that Pennsylvania Power Company has incorporated by reference in
its previously filed Registration Statements No. 33-47372, No. 33-62450 and
No. 33-65156, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 1997, which includes our report dated August 13, 1997,
covering the unaudited interim financial statements contained therein.
Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933, such
report is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or
certified by our firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within
the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

                             Very truly yours,




                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
August 13, 1997
#### DUPREE v. MYERS.

No. 4168.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit, Second Division.

May 4, 1932.

For former opinion, see 138 So. 146. -

Reynolds, Hamiter & Hendrick, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Craig, Bolin & Magee, of Mansfield, for ap-pellee.

TALIAFERRO, J.

The rehearing ordered in this case, while without restriction, was primarily for the purpose of affording opportunity to amend our former decree, 138 So. 146, so as to comply with the law which gives defendant the alternative of holding the property and supplementing the price,' or of surrendering the property to plaintiff.

However, we have again studied the record and have given due consideration to the argument and earnest brief of defendant’s counsel, without experiencing any change of opinion on the two main questions passed on in our former decree, viz., plaintiff’s ownership of the property when conveyed to defendant and its value being more than twice the amount of price paid him. Such value we find to be $550 or $10 per acre. No good purpose would be served by repetition of the facts of the ease, nor of the reasons for our former decree.

For the reasons herein assigned, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be, and same is hereby, reversed and set aside, and there is now judgment in favor of plaintdfc decreeing the sale of said property by him to defendant, subject to be annulled and rescinded on the ground of lesion .beyond moiety, and such sale is hereby annulled and rescinded, for such reason, subject to the right of election by defendant, within 30 days after finality of this decree, of supplementing the price of such sale and paying plaintiff $450 in cash and holding the property; or .surrender said property to plaintiff, free of mortgages and/or other incumbrances, within said time, and in this event the check of $100, now in the registry of the lower court, tendered on account of the price of sale, shall be delivered to defendant; and should defendant not elect to supplement the price of sale, as herein fixed, the property described therein shall become that of and belong to plaintiff in full ownership, free of any claim of defendant, which ownership, and his right of possession thereto, in that event, is hereby recognized.

As amended hereby, our former judgment and decree is reinstated and made final. Costs of both courts are decreed to be paid by defendant.
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350


and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)


In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Mavenir Systems, Inc. (“Mavenir”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Pardeep Kohli, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Mavenir, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b), that to my knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                             
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Mavenir.

Dated: April 21, 2015





By/s/ Pardeep KohliPardeep KohliChief Executive Officer andDirector


This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be filed by Mavenir for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This certification is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Mavenir under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7594

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ISRAEL HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief

District Judge. (5:07-cr-00063-gec-mfu-12; 5:10-cv-80283-gecuu)

Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 28, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Israel Hernandez-Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray 

Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Israel Hernandez-Hernandez seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Hernandez-Hernandez has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6642 

To repeal the corporate average fuel economy standards. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2022 

Mr. PERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal the corporate average fuel economy standards. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEALING THE CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL 

4 ECONOMY STANDARDS. 

5 Chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code, and the 

6 item relating to such chapter in the analysis of chapters 

7 for subtitle VI of such title, are repealed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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 this annual report on
Form 10-K of Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 26, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard L. Markee, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.
|---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 17, 2010



/s/ Richard L. MarkeeRichard L. MarkeeChief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board, Director(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Report.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 683 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 683

      To promote diversity in the national apprenticeship system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2021

 Ms. Adams (for herself and Mr. Jones) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To promote diversity in the national apprenticeship system.

    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 ``Apprenticeship Access for All Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. PROMOTING DIVERSITY IN THE NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP SYSTEM.

    The Secretary of Labor shall promote diversity and ensure equal 
opportunity to participate in programs for apprentices, youth 
apprentices, and pre-apprentices, including--
            (1) taking steps necessary to promote diversity in 
        apprenticeable occupations under the national apprenticeship 
        system, especially in high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand 
        industry sectors and occupations in areas with high percentages 
        of low-income individuals;
            (2) ensuring programs under the national apprenticeship 
        system--
                    (A) adopt and implement policies to provide for 
                equal opportunity in such programs, as described in 
                section 30.3 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations 
                (as in effect on January 31, 2020);
                    (B) do not engage in intimidation or retaliation as 
                prohibited under section 30.17 of title 29, Code of 
                Federal Regulations (as in effect on January 31, 2020); 
                and
                    (C) are subject, for any violation of subparagraphs 
                (A) or (B), to enforcement action as described in 
                section 30.15 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations 
                (as in effect on January 31, 2020); and
            (3) supporting the recruitment, employment, and retention 
        of nontraditional apprenticeship populations in programs under 
        the national apprenticeship system in high-skill, high-wage, 
        and in-demand industry sectors and occupations, including 
        women, people of color, individuals with disabilities, 
        individuals impacted by the criminal and juvenile justice 
        system, and individuals with barriers to employment, as 
        applicable.
                                 <all>
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

EXHIBIT 10.10.4  


 
 

AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO
  THE EXECUTIVE MEDICAL PLAN OF
  THE COCA-COLA COMPANY    
    


        THIS AMENDMENT to the Executive Medical Plan of The Coca-Cola Company (the "Plan") is adopted by the Plan Administrator. 


W I T N E S S E T H:  


        WHEREAS, Section 10 of the Plan provides that the Plan Administrator may amend the Plan at any time; and 



        WHEREAS,
the Plan Administrator wishes to amend the Plan. 


        NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan Administrator hereby amends the Plan as follows: 


        Effective
January 1, 2005, Section 12.4 shall be restated in its entirety as follows: 



        "12.4    Establishment
and Maintenance of Adequate Separation between the Company and the Plan. In accordance with the requirements of HIPAA, only
the following employees/classes of employees will be given access to PHI to be disclosed: 



	Barbara Gilbreath

Angela Green

Inga Vaystikh Smith

Linda Hodges	 	Sharon Ray

Cheryl Lee

Ann Cegielski

Porcha Cook	 	Leah Thomason

Miatta Wright

Angela Coppola

Lisa Taylor"






        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan Administrator has adopted this Amendment Number Three on the date shown below, but effective as of the date indicated above. 



	 	 	Plan Administrator
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  BARBARA S. GILBREATH      

	

 	
 	

Date:	
 	

12/29/2004














QuickLinks


AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO THE EXECUTIVE MEDICAL PLAN OF THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 169 (Friday, August 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20041]



[[Page 51002]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,308]


Robertshaw Controls Company, a Division of Invensys Controls, 
Including On-Site Leased Workers From VOLT Services, Long Beach, CA; 
Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on November 7, 2007, applicable to workers of 
Robertshaw Controls Company, a division of Invensys Controls, Long 
Beach, California. The notice was published in the Federal Register on 
November 21, 2007 (72 FR 65607).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged 
in the production of gas valve components.
    New information shows that leased workers of Volt Services were 
employed on-site at the Long Beach, California location of Robertshaw 
Controls Company, a division of Invensys Controls.
    The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently 
under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include leased workers of Volt Services working on-
site at the Long Beach, California location of the subject firm.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers employed at Robertshaw Controls Company, a division of Invensys 
Controls who were adversely affected by a shift in production of gas 
valve components to Mexico.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-62,308 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Robertshaw Controls Company, a division of 
Invensys Controls, including on-site leased workers from Volt 
Services, Long Beach, California, who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after October 2, 2006, through 
November 9, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to 
apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 
of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of August 2008.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-20041 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Agreement between M. Lawrence Light and McDonald's Corporation



 Exhibit 10(l). Arrangement between M. Lawrence Light and McDonald’s Corporation

  
 Set forth below is a description of the material terms of an arrangement
between M. Lawrence Light and McDonald’s Corporation (the “Company”): 
  

	1.	When Mr. Light ceases to be the Chief Marketing Officer of the Company, the Company will offer Mr. Light continued employment for a period of two and one-half years at the rate of
$50,000 per year. Throughout this continued employment period, Mr. Light’s existing equity grants will continue to vest and be exercisable in accordance with their original terms. During this two and one-half year period, Mr. Light can only be
terminated for Cause, with Cause being defined as: (i) the willful failure of Mr. Light to perform substantially all of his duties with the Company (other than any failure resulting from incapacity resulting from physical or mental illness), after
written demand for substantial performance is delivered to Mr. Light by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors or the Company’s Chief Executive Officer; or (ii) willful violation of the Company’s rules and
policies (including without limitation the Company’s Standards of Business Conduct) as in effect from time to time; or (iii) the commission of any act or acts involving dishonesty, intentional breach of fiduciary obligation, fraud, illegality,
malfeasance or moral turpitude; or (iv) Mr. Light is convicted of or found liable for a criminal or civil violation or cause of action involving fraud or dishonesty; or (v) Mr. Light is found liable for or guilty in a civil matter of engaging in
discriminatory conduct in violation of any labor or employment laws or in violating or contributing to a violation of an employee’s civil rights; or (vi) Mr. Light materially breaches the non-competition agreement referenced in the following
section; or (vii) Mr. Light refuses to carry out clearly assigned duties or is otherwise insubordinate. 

  

	2.	In return for the continued employment described above, Mr. Light must agree not to work for or provide services to a quick service or casual dining Competing Business for two years
following his termination of employment. Competing Business means any casual dining or quick service restaurant business (operational or start-up) anywhere in the world that is substantially similar to, competes with, or is intended to compete with,
replace, or duplicate in the market any product or service that was sold or under development by the Company during Mr. Light’s tenure of employment with the Company or which Mr. Light has specific knowledge or involvement.


  

 McDonald’s Corporation    105
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 Atwood Minerals and Mining Corp., a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Greg Goldberg, 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:




(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.




Dated:
March 4, 2009




/s/ Greg GoldbergGreg Goldberg,President, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
      Officer, Principal Accounting Officer,
                Secretary,
      and Treasurer