alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6933 

AN ACT 

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require reporting 

relating to certain cost-share requirements. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6933 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cost-Share Account3 ability Act of 2022’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. 

5 Section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 

6 U.S.C. 16352) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(g) REPORTING.—Not later than 120 days after the 

9 enactment of the Cost-Share Accountability Act of 2022, 

10 and at least quarterly thereafter, the Secretary shall sub11 mit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

12 and Committee on Appropriations of the House of Rep13 resentatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 

14 Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the 

15 Senate, and shall make publicly available, a report on the 

16 use by the Department during the period covered by the 

17 report of the authority to reduce or eliminate cost-sharing 

18 requirements provided by subsections (b)(3) or (c)(2).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 27, 2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6933 

AN ACT 

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require 

ments. reporting relating to certain cost-share require-
II 

Calendar No. 452 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6899 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2022 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

JULY 21, 2022 

Reported by Mr. MENENDEZ, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from engaging 

in transactions involving the exchange of Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund 

that are held by the Russian Federation or Belarus. 

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 ‘‘Russia and Belarus 

5 SDR Exchange Prohibition Act of 2022’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6899 RS

1 SEC. 2. SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS EXCHANGE PROHIBI2 TION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

4 may not engage in any transaction involving the exchange 

5 of Special Drawing Rights issued by the International 

6 Monetary Fund that are held by the Russian Federation 

7 or Belarus. 

8 (b) ADVOCACY.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

9 shall— 

10 (1) vigorously advocate that the governments of 

11 the member countries of the International Monetary 

12 Fund, to the extent that the member countries issue 

13 freely usable currencies, prohibit transactions involv14 ing the exchange of Special Drawing Rights held by 

15 the Russian Federation or Belarus and 

16 (2) direct the United States Executive Director 

17 at each international financial institution (as defined 

18 in section 1701(c)(2) of the International Financial 

19 Institutions Act) to use the voice and vote of the 

20 United States to oppose the provision of financial 

21 assistance to the Russian Federation and Belarus, 

22 except to address basic human needs of the civilian 

23 population. 

24 (c) TERMINATION.—The preceding provisions of this 

25 section shall have no force or effect on the earlier of— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6899 RS

1 (1) the date that is 5 years after the date of the 

2 enactment of this Act; or 

3 (2) 30 days after the date that the President 

4 reports to the Congress that the governments of the 

5 Russian Federation and Belarus have ceased desta6 bilizing activities with respect to the sovereignty and 

7 territorial integrity of Ukraine. 

8 (d) WAIVER.—The President may waive the applica9 tion of this section if the President reports to the Congress 

10 that the waiver is in the national interest of the United 

11 States and includes an explanation of the reasons therefor. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Calendar No. 452 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6899 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enRussian Federation or Belarus. national Monetary Fund that are held by the Special Drawing Rights issued by the Inter- gaging in transactions involving the exchange of 

JULY 21, 2022 

Reported without amendment 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JEREMY JAMES CHERRY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30127 

D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00146-JCC-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 26, 2020**

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Jeremy James Cherry appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction 

for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4). We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

* 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

OCT 30 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-30127 

Cherry contends that, because his prior Washington state conviction for firstdegree rape of a child did not require proof of intent, it does not constitute a state 

conviction “relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual 

conduct involving a minor or ward,” and the district court should not have applied 

the 10-year mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2). As Cherry 

concedes, this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Sullivan, 797 F.3d 623, 640

(9th Cir. 2015) (prior state offenses were offenses “relating to” sexual abuse of a 

minor under § 2252(b)(2) even though they lacked the mens rea requirement of the 

generic federal offense). Because Cherry has not shown that Sullivan is “clearly 

irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority, Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 

900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), we are bound to follow Sullivan. See United States 

v. Arriaga-Pinon, 852 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir. 2017).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach the government’s arguments 

that Cherry’s prior conviction is a categorical match for the generic federal offense 

of abusive sexual conduct even without reliance on the “relating to” provision of 

§ 2252(b)(2), or that any error in the district court’s application of the mandatory 

minimum was harmless. 

AFFIRMED.
#### Thomas A. Telfer et al., Appellants, v Sidney L. Friedman, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied, and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: In this action for malicious prosecution, plaintiffs appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court held that, because the underlying criminal proceeding against plaintiff husband was dismissed in the interest of justice, plaintiffs could not demonstrate the essential element that the prosecution terminated in favor of the accused *(see, Davis v State of New York,*124 AD2d 420, 421, 423; *Jackson v County of Nassau,*123 AD2d 834, *lv denied*69 NY2d 608; *Miller v Star,*123 AD2d 750, 751; *Kenyon v State of New York,*118 AD2d 942, 943-944; *cf., Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop.,*58 NY2d 420, 423-426). Although the court’s decision states the correct rule for ultimate resolution of plaintiffs’ claim, there is a triable question of fact whether the criminal prosecution in fact was terminated by a dismissal in the interest of justice and, if so, whether such disposition was obtained by defendant by means of an artifice in order to preclude a malicious prosecution claim. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J.—summary judgment.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PUSHPINDER WALIA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MEGAN J. BRENNAN,* Postmaster

General; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-35144

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01188-JLR

MEMORANDUM**

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2015*** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Pushpinder Walia appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in her employment action alleging violations of Title VII. We have jurisdiction

FILED

FEB 26 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 *

Megan J. Brennan has been substituted for her predecessor, John E.

Potter, as Postmaster General under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

 ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615

F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Walia’s race and 

national origin discrimination claims because Walia failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reasons for their actions were pretextual. See id. at 1155-56, 1158 (providing

framework for analyzing a discrimination claim under Title VII and noting that

evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Walia’s hostile

work environment claims because Walia failed to raise a triable dispute as to

whether she was subjected to conduct that was motivated by her race or national

origin, or for engaging in a protected activity, and also failed to raise a triable issue

as to whether defendants’ conduct altered the conditions of her employment and

created an abusive work environment. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349

F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of a race-based hostile work environment

claim); Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2000) (requirements

for retaliatory harassment under Title VII).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Walia’s retaliation

claim because Walia failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether defendants’

2 13-35144
legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for terminating her probationary employment

were pretextual. See Ray, 217 F.3d at 1240 (elements of a retaliation claim under

Title VII); Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1066, 1069-70 (9th Cir.

2004) (circumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial).

AFFIRMED.

3 13-35144
#### BARANCO et al. v. REYMOND et al.*

No. 1752.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 6, 1937.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 1937.

For former opinion, see 176 So. 673.

C. G. Spaht and Fred G. Benton, both of Baton Rouge, for appellants.

G. T. Owen, Jr., of Baton Rouge, for ap-pellees.

*

 Rehearing denied Dec. 9, 1937.

PER CURIAM.

In the first assignment of errors made in the application, it is stated that the court is in error in holding that a tax deed in which the property was assessed, advertised, and sold under the description of lots 10, 11, and 12, square S of L. Q. Huey map filed March, 1920, on Reymond avenue, was merely ambiguous as to description, and that plaintiff had a right to show that the property intended to be assessed and sold was lots 28, 29, and 30 of square 5 of said Huey map.

This statement is incorrect. The property assessed and sold was described as a strip 150x140 feet between sites 8 and 9, being lots 10, 11, and 12, square 5 of L. Q. Huey map filed in March, 1920, on Reymond avenue. We. found that, according to the first map filed, this strip of land between these two sites shown on this first map corresponded to lots 28, 29, and 30 of square 5 of the Huey map, and that, as all the other property in that assessment had reference to the first map, therefore it was probable that the property assessed and sold was this strip between these sites 8 and 9 on Reymond avenue as shown on the first map; that under these circumstances, there was an ambiguity in the description, and plaintiff had a right to show by evidence what property was intended to be sold.

We are satisfied that our opinion and decree is correct, and the application for rehearing is therefore refused.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7026 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7026

   To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to require States to 
  include a photograph on electronic benefit cards issued to provide 
          supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2022

 Mr. Grothman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to require States to 
  include a photograph on electronic benefit cards issued to provide 
          supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits.

    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 ``ID for EBT Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 7(h)(9) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
2016(h)(9)) is amended--
            (1) in the heading by striking ``Optional'' and inserting 
        ``Mandatory'';
            (2) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``may'' and inserting 
        ``shall''; and
            (3) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``If'' and all that 
        follows through ``(A), the'' and inserting ``The''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 11


The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the 1988 Stock Option Plan will be
exercised.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                                         Second Quarter              First Six Months
                                                         --------------              ----------------
                                                         1999       1998             1999       1998
                                                         ----       ----             ----       ----
<S>                                                   <C>         <C>             <C>         <C>
Net Earnings                                          $  3,133    $  2,760        $  6,413    $  5,570
                                                     ======================      ======================

Weighted average common shares outstanding               7,347       7,357           7,353       7,357

Common share equivalents relating to stock options           1           1               1           1

Adjusted common and common equivalent                ----------------------      ---------------------
   shares for computation                                7,348       7,358           7,354       7,358
                                                     ======================      ======================

Net earnings per share:
     Basic                                            $   0.43    $   0.38        $   0.87    $   0.76
                                                     ======================      ======================
     Diluted                                          $   0.43    $   0.38        $   0.87    $   0.76
                                                     ======================      ======================
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 173 (Friday, September 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20590]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Meeting of the Ocean Research and Resources Advisory 
Panel; Correction

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy published a document in the Federal 
Register on August 26, 2008 at 73 FR 50312 concerning a meeting of the 
Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel. The document contained 
incorrect information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charles L. Vincent, Office of 
Naval Research, 875 North Randolph Street, Suite 1425, Arlington, VA 
22203-1995, telephone: 703-696-4118.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 26, 2008, in FR Doc. E8-19725, on 
page 50312, make the following changes:
    1. In the first column, on page 50312, correct the SUMMARY section 
to read as follows:
    ``SUMMARY: The Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel (ORRAP) 
will meet to finalize the recommendations laid out in the ORRAP 
administration transition document. The meeting will be open to the 
public.''
    2. In the first column, on page 50312, correct the DATES section to 
read as follows:
    ``DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, October 6, 2008 from 
11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Members of the public should submit their 
comments one week in advance of the meeting to the meeting point of 
contact.''
    3. In the first column, on page 50312, correct the ADDRESSES 
section to read as follows:
    ``ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the offices of the 
Consortium of Ocean Leadership, 1201 New York Avenue NW., 4th Floor, 
Washington, DC.''

    Dated: August 29, 2008.
T. M. Cruz,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-20590 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20342]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,718]


Martinrea Heavy Stamping Division, Shelbyville, KY; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on July 21, 2008 in response to a petition 
filed by a One-Stop office on behalf of workers of Martinrea, Heavy 
Stamping Division, Shelbyville, Kentucky.
    The Department determined that the petitioner was not a One-Stop 
operator or partner but rather a former worker. A petition filed by 
workers must be completed and signed by three affected workers. 
Accordingly, the petition is deemed invalid and the investigation under 
this petition is terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of August, 2008
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-20342 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20703]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee will hold 
meetings on September 16, 2008 and September 22, 2008 or September 23, 
2008 at the U.S. Forest Service Office, 35 College Drive, South Lake 
Tahoe, CA 96150. This Committee, established by the Secretary of 
Agriculture on December 15, 1998 (64 FR 2876), is chartered to provide 
advice to the Secretary on implementing the terms of the Federal 
Interagency Partnership on the Lake Tahoe Region and other matters 
raised by the Secretary.

DATES: The meetings will be held September 16, 2008, beginning at 1 
p.m. and ending at 4 p.m., and September 22, 2008, beginning at 1 p.m. 
and ending at 4 p.m. or September 23, beginning at 9:30 a.m. and ending 
at noon. Selection of final meeting dates can be viewed at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ltbmu/local/ltfac/.

ADDRESSES: All meetings will be held at the U.S. Forest Service Office, 
35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.
    For Further Information or to Request an Accommodation (One Week 
Prior to Meeting Date) Contact: Arla Hams, Lake Tahoe Basin Management 
Unit, Forest Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, 
(530) 543-2773.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Items to be covered on the agenda on 
September 16, 2008: (1) New member orientation, and (2) public comment. 
Items to be covered on the agenda on September 22 or September 23 
include: (1) Preparation for SNPLMA Round 10, and (2) committee 
operations.
    All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open 
to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend at the 
above address. Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee 
during the open public comment period at the meeting or by filing 
written statements with the secretary for the Committee before or after 
the meeting. Please refer any written comments to the Lake Tahoe Basin 
Management Unit at the contact address stated above.
    This Federal Register notice will be published less than 15 
calendar days based on these exceptional circumstances: (1) The 2008 
LTFAC has only recently received a preliminary confirmation (August 22, 
2008); and (2) there will be timely meeting notification through the 
LTBMLJ Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ltbmu/local/ltfac/.

    Dated: September 2, 2008.
Terri Marceron,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E8-20703 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### Ethel SCOTT v. Mrs. Luke RICHARD, Sr., et al.

No. 2766.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 21, 1945.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1946.

A. Deutsche O’Neal, of Houma, for plaintiff.

Robt. B. Butler, Jr., of Houma, for defendants Ernest Daigle and Nouga Babin.

Pettigrew & Duval, of Houma, for defendants Mrs. Ayeline Richard, widow, and Luke Richard, Jr.

DORE, Judge.

For the written reasons handed down this day in the consolidated cases of Ethel Scott v. Richard et al. and Elmo Scott v. Richard et al., La.App., 24 So.2d 175, the judgment appealed from is hereby amended so as to decree a judgment against all defendants, namely: Mrs. Ayeline LeBoeuf Richard, widow of Luke Richard, Sr., Luke Richard, Jr., Ernest Daigle and Nouga Babin, jointly and in solido, and as thus amended the judgment is affirmed. Defendants to pay all costs.

It is further ordered that that portion of the judgment ordering plaintiff’s suit dismissed as against the defendants Mrs. Luke Richard, Sr., and Luke Richard, Jr., be and the same is hereby reversed and set aside.