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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4831 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4831

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To temporarily reenact chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States 
                                 Code.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4831

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To temporarily reenact chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States 
                                 Code.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY REENACTMENT OF BANKRUPTCY PROVISIONS RELATING TO 
              FAMILY FARMERS.

    (a) Reenactment.--Chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code, 
as in effect on September 30, 1998, is hereby reenacted for the period 
beginning on October 1, 1998, and ending on April 1, 1999.
    (b) Continuation of Cases.--All cases commenced or pending under 
chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, as reenacted under 
subsection (a), and all matters and proceedings in or relating to such 
cases, shall be conducted and determined under such chapter as if such 
chapter were continued in effect after April 1, 1999. The substantive 
rights of parties in connection with such cases, matters, and 
proceedings shall continue to be governed under the laws applicable to 
such cases, matters, and proceedings as if such chapter were continued 
in effect after April 1, 1999.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on October 1, 1998.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 15, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gerald B. Axelrad,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03661-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9070 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 1
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Samuel Ward, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-50162-PHX-SPL

ORDER OF DETENTION 

A detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing on the Petition on 

Supervised Release were held on November 10, 2016. 

The Court Finds that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

waived his right to a detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing and has 

consented to the issue of detention being made based upon the allegations in the Petition. 

 The Court Further Finds that the Defendant has failed to sustain his burden of 

proof by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., 

that he is not a serious flight risk. United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994). 

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the 

court. 

 Dated this 10th day of November, 2016. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cr-50162-SPL Document 22 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 32.3 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the filing of the financial statements of Chindex
International, Inc. (Registrant) for the fiscal year ended December,
31, 2002 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Registrant. /s/ Ronald Zilkowski
Ronald Zilkowski
Senior Vice President Finance
and Corporate Controller
(Principal Accounting Officer) A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Chindex International, Inc. and will be retained by Chindex
International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           9,954
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                       259
<INVENTORY>                                      6,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,989
<PP&E>                                          34,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,819
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,656
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,246
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,810
<SALES>                                         10,437
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,349
<CGS>                                            6,773
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,195)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        96
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,291)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,291)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, October 31, 2014, 12:00 p.m. to October 31, 2014, 3:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 15, 2014, 79FRN61884.                

The meeting date and time has been changed to November 11, 2014 from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: October 17, 2014.

Carolyn Baum, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-25181 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Ellen Bausback","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ebausbac\/","title":"Going Through Changes: Total Eclipse Over NASA Hangar","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"mtL2IugUa9\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/going-through-changes-total-eclipse-over-nasa-hangar\/\">Going Through Changes: Total Eclipse Over NASA Hangar<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/going-through-changes-total-eclipse-over-nasa-hangar\/embed\/#?secret=mtL2IugUa9\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Going Through Changes: Total Eclipse Over NASA Hangar” — NASA\" data-secret=\"mtL2IugUa9\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/jis-1965-hangar-composite.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

In Re Bard IVC Filters Products 

Liability Litigation 

No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION 

TO EXTEND TIME ALLOTED FOR 

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE AND 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM TO 

SEAL DOCUMENTS LODGED UNDER 

SEAL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ 

OMNIBUS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF 

FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ 

RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGEMENT IN THE BELLWETHER 

CASES 

This matter has come before the Court on Parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Time 

Allotted for Plaintiffs’ Response and Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to 

Defendants’ Memorandum to Seal Documents Lodged Under Seal in Support of 

Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Statement of Facts In Support of Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendants’ 

Motions for Summary Judgment in the Bellwether. 

The Court, having reviewed the Motion and being otherwise duly advised, finds 

that good cause exists and the relief sought by the Parties should be GRANTED. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ 

Memorandum to Seal Documents Lodged Under Seal in Support of Plaintiffs’ Omnibus 

Statement of Facts In Support of Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendants’ Motions for 

Summary Judgment in the Bellwether is due Friday, November 17, 2017. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8775-1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Memorandum to Seal 

Documents Lodged Under Seal in Support of Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Statement of Facts In 

Support of Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment in the 

Bellwether is due Friday, December 1, 2017. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8775-1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 2 of 2
3 0 5 S .W .3 d 5 4 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) ( p lu ra lity o p .). 1 I d. at553- 54, 557, 560- 61. 2 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS N O . P D - 0338- 09
C O R BE TT K . W EINN , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE S EVENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

LUBBOCK CO UNTY K EASLE R , J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P. J. , and H ERVEY , J ., j oi ne d. DI S S E NT I NG OP I NI ON T he maj or i tyi ncorr ect l ydi s t i ngui s hes the fact s of t hi s cas e fr om thos e i n ourr ece nt decis i on in G u e r r e ro v . S ta te . B utthe fa ct s of G uerrero ar e i dent i cal
. I n G uerrero , a 1 pl ur al i tyof us hel d thatG uerr er o’ s convi ct i ons for m anufa ctur i ng and pos s es s i ng w i th i nt ent t o del i verthe s ame cache of m ethamphet ami ne di d not vi ol at e the D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e. 2I d. a t 5 5 4
. 3 T hough G uerr er o ’ s ma n u f a ctur e and pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o del i verw er e cl os e i n t i m e, t hey “w er e di s cr et e ac t s w i th di ffe r enti m pul s es ”— “on e i m pul s e t o m anufa ctur e and a not her i mp u l s e t o p o s s e s s f

o r th e p u rp o s e o f d e l i v e r i n g wh a th a s b e e n ma n u f a c tu r e d
. ” Th e s a me

3 can and shoul d be sai d her e. I w oul d ther efor e hol d that ther e i s no j eopar dyvi ol at i on and
re v e rs e th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls ’s ju d g m e n t.

D A T E FI L E D : J une 30, 2010 PU BL I SH
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 quarterly report of The Newark Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2005 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert H. Mullen, Chief Executive Officer 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.



Dated: December 14, 2005



/s/ Robert H. MullenRobert H. MullenChief Executive Officer




This certification has been
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure statement.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Brenwin Garice Kayquoptewa,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No. CR15-08194-001-PCT-SPL

TEMPORARY DETENTION ORDER

FOR INTAKE ASSESSMENT

Defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3141 et seq. a

detention hearing was held. Upon recommendation of Pretrial Services, the defendant is

ordered detained pending an intake assessment for placement at Crossroads in Phoenix,

Arizona or other facility as designated by Pretrial Services. Should defendant qualify for

such placement, defendant shall be released upon conditions set by this Court, including

pretrial residency at said facility, as conditions do exist which would reasonably assure the

safety of others and the appearance of the defendant. Should defendant not so qualify, the

release conditions set by this Court shall be vacated and defendant shall be detained pending

trial as there are no conditions or combination of conditions which would reasonably assure

the safety of others or the appearance of the defendant.

/

/

/

Case 3:15-cr-08194-SPL Document 16 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

The Pretrial Services Officer is ordered to timely notify this Court of the defendant's

intake assessment results, and if found acceptable, the date and time the facility will provide

transportation from the Sandra Day O’Connor Courthouse for defendant.

DATED this 24th day of September, 2015.

Case 3:15-cr-08194-SPL Document 16 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 2
*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

March 23, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40836

Summary Calendar

 

CHARLES KENNETH NELSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE; ROBERT HERRERA, 

Warden, Beto I Unit; SHERRI MILLIGAN, 

Correctional Officer IV, Beto I Unit; 

S. SCHUMACHER, Grievance Officer, 

Huntsville, Texas,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:04-CV-152-LED-HWM

 

Before GARWOOD, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Kenneth Nelson, Texas prisoner #503292, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis

(“IFP”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. Nelson’s

complaint sought compensation for damage to his personal property.
**Nelson, though properly warned of the need to do so, failed

to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation. 

2

The district court did not plainly err in dismissing Nelson’s

deprivation-of-property claim as frivolous. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en

banc).** Texas has an adequate post-deprivation remedy for loss of

prisoner property. Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.

1994).

Nelson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s

dismissal as frivolous each count as a “strike” for purposes of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (

5th Cir. 1996). Nelson received a previous strike as the result of

the dismissal as frivolous of his appeal from the denial of FED. R.

CIV. P. 60(b) relief in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. See Nelson

v. Soliz, No. 95-40714 (5th Cir. Dec. 20, 1995). Therefore, Nelson

has accumulated at least three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

and he is BARRED from bringing any civil action or appeal IFP while

he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he shows that

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR

IMPOSED.
3
<PAGE>
                                EXHIBIT 23.2


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated January 22, 2204, accompanying the 2003
consolidated financial statement included in the Annual Report of Royal
Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
said report in the Registration Statements of Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania,
Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 333-25855, effective April 25, 1997;
File No. 333-129894, effective November 22, 2005).



/s/ Grant Thornton, LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 14, 2006
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2783 

To clarify conditions for the interceptions of computer trespass 

communications under the USA-PATRIOT Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2004 

Mr. FEINGOLD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To clarify conditions for the interceptions of computer 

trespass communications under the USA-PATRIOT Act. 

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 ‘‘Computer Trespass 

5 Clarification Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 2510(21)(B) of title 18, 

8 United States Code, is amended by— 

9 (1) inserting ‘‘or other’’ after ‘‘contractual’’; 

10 and 
2 

•S 2783 IS

1 (2) striking ‘‘for access’’ and inserting ‘‘permit2 ting access’’. 

3 (b) INTERCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE.—Section 

4 2511(2)(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in clause (I), by inserting after ‘‘the owner 

6 or operator of the protected computer’’ the following: 

7 ‘‘is attempting to respond to communications activ8 ity that threatens the integrity or operation of such 

9 computer and requests assistance to protect rights 

10 and property of the owner or operator, and’’; and 

11 (2) in clause (IV), by inserting after ‘‘intercep12 tion’’ the following: ‘‘ceases as soon as the commu13 nications sought are obtained or after 96 hours, 

14 whichever is earlier, unless an interception order is 

15 obtained under this chapter, and’’. 

16 (c) REPORT.—The Attorney General shall annually 

17 report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate 

18 and the House of Representatives on the use of section 

19 2511 of title 18, United States Code, relating to computer 

20 trespass provisions as amended by subsection (b). 

Æ