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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 51

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide that persons retiring

from the Armed Forces shall be entitled to all benefits which were

promised them when they entered the Armed Forces.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

Mr. CONDIT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on National Security

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide that

persons retiring from the Armed Forces shall be entitled

to all benefits which were promised them when they

entered the Armed Forces.

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

3 SECTION 1. ENTITLEMENT OF MILITARY RETIREES TO

4 BENEFITS PROMISED UPON ACCESSION.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 34 of title 10, United

6 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1031

7 the following new section:
2

HR 51 IH

1 ‘‘§ 1031a. Entitlement to retirement benefits: persons

2 first becoming members of the armed

3 forces on or after date of enactment of

4 section

5 ‘‘(a) EXPLANATION OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS.—In

6 the case of any person who first becomes a member of

7 the armed forces on or after the date of the enactment

8 of this section, the Secretary concerned shall ensure that

9 the person, upon first becoming a member of the armed

10 forces, is provided a written statement describing the ben11 efits that, under then-current laws and regulations, will

12 be provided to that person if that person is subsequently

13 retired from the armed forces. Such statement shall be

14 in clear and concise language and shall explain any limita15 tion or qualification on the receipt of those benefits (such

16 as, in the case of medical and dental care, the availability

17 of staff and facilities). However, any such limitation or

18 qualification may not include a statement of reservation

19 of the right to change any such benefit (either by law or

20 regulation).

21 ‘‘(b) ENTITLEMENT TO RETIREMENT BENEFITS.—

22 Any person who receives a statement of retirement bene23 fits under subsection (a) and who subsequently retires

24 from the armed forces shall be entitled, upon that retire25 ment, to the benefits as described in that statement.’’.
3

HR 51 IH

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

2 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting

3 after the item relating to section 1031 the following new

4 item:

‘‘1031a. Entitlement to retirement benefits: persons first becoming members of

the armed forces on or after date of enactment of section.’’.

Æ
#### Alcorn *v.*Harmonson.

A. person entered into possession of real estate under a parol contract, by which lie lessee was to have a written lease for the premises for '7 years, and was to make e'ertain improvements thereon. After a part of the work had been done, and long before the expiration of the term, the lessor refused to execute the lease, and obliged the lessee to quit the premises. Held, lhat the lessor, having rescinded the special contract, was liable to the lessee, in indebitatus assumpsit, for the work performed.

ERROR to the *Marion*Circuit Court.

Wednesday, *May*13.

Scott, J.

Action on the case, on promises, before a justice of the peace. Judgment for defendant. Appeal to the Crtcuit Court. Verdict and judgment in the Circuit Court in faVour of *Harmonson,*thé 'appellant, for 48 dollars and 50 cents. Writ of error.

A hill of'exceptions, made part of the record, states, that *Alcorn*agreed, by parol, to give *Harmonson*a lease for seven years .of an unimproved tract of land. *Harmonson*was to clear twenty acres, build a cabin, dig a well, and do some other w'ork, and was to have a lease in writing. In pursuance of this agreement, *Harmonson*went on the land, cleared about nine acres, built a cabin, dug a well, and performed certain other labour!, and continued on the premises about two years. *'Alcorn*refused to execute a lease, and gave *Harmonson*notice to quit the premises, which he did accordingly, and brought this suit to recover a compensation for bis labour., Itis'alleged here, as error, that the contract, being by parol, was void under the statute of frauds, and that the plaintiff could not recover on a general countin assumpsit, on proof of a special agreement.

*236
      *Gregg,*for the plaintiff.

*Fletcher*and *Brown,*for the defendant;

This agreement, being by parol, was not available under our statute, as a lease for seven years; it could have no greater force or effect than a lease at will. The lessor had the power to determine the interest of the lessee; which he did, by giving him notice to leave the premises; and, by this act, he rescinded the contract for a seven years’ lease. Where money has been paid, upon a contract which is afterwards rescinded by the act of the defendant, it has been held that the plaintiff has a right to recover back the money. 2 Stark. Ev. 116.—1 T. R. 133.—7 T. R. 177. And no reason exists why the value of labour, performed upon such a contract, should not be recovered on the same principle. Although the parol contract was not binding as a lease for a term of years, it might be used to show that *Harmonson*was nbt bn the premises as a trespasser, but that the labour was done with the consent and at the request of the defendant; and he, having rescinded the agreement by which the plaintiff was induced to perform the labour, left no special contract in existence which could bar the plaintiff’s right to recover the value of the improvements in this form of action.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per *cent,*damages and costs.
| 1.     |                                                                               | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and                        |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                               |                                                                                                                                                               |
| 2.     |                                                                               | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      Registrant. |
|   |                                                                               |                                                                                                                                                               |   |   |
|   | Date:      July 29, 2010                                                      |                                                                                                                                                               |
|   | /s/      Roberta Lipson                                                       |                                                                                                                                                               |
|   | Roberta      Lipson                                                           |                                                                                                                                                               |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer and President(Principal      Executive Officer)  |                                                                                                                                                               |
|   |

----
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9869-1 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 1
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2743

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that only licensed medical 

doctors, licensed doctors of osteopathy, and certain licensed dentists 

may perform eye surgery at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities 

or under contract with the Department. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 22, 2004

Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. SESSIONS) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that 

only licensed medical doctors, licensed doctors of osteopathy, and certain licensed dentists may perform eye surgery at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities or 

under contract with the Department.

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 ‘‘Veterans Eye Treat5 ment Safety (VETS) Act of 2004’’. 
2

•S 2743 IS 

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION AS TO PERSONS WHO MAY PERFORM 

2 EYE SURGERY FOR DEPARTMENT OF VET3 ERANS AFFAIRS. 

4 Section 1707 of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 

7 ‘‘(c)(1) Eye surgery at a Department facility or under 

8 contract with the Department may be performed only by 

9 an individual who is a licensed medical doctor, a licensed 

10 doctor of osteopathy, or a licensed dentist whose practice 

11 is limited to the specialty of oral or maxillofacial surgery. 

12 ‘‘(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘eye 

13 surgery’ means any procedure involving the eye or the 

14 adnexa in which human tissue is cut, burned, frozen, va15 porized, ablated, probed, or otherwise altered or pene16 trated by incision, injection, laser, ultrasound, ionizing ra17 diation, or by other means, in order to treat eye disease, 

18 alter or correct refractive error, or alter or enhance cos19 metic appearance. Such term does not include the fol20 lowing noninvasive, nonsurgical procedures: removal of su21 perficial ocular foreign bodies from the conjunctival sur22 face, from the eyelid epidermis, or from the corneal epithe23 lium; corneal debridement and scraping; forceps epilation 

24 of misaligned eyelashes; the prescription and fitting of 

25 contact lenses; insertion of punctal plugs, diagnostic dila26 tion or irrigation of the lacrimal system; the use of diag-
3

•S 2743 IS 

1 nostic ultrasound; orthokeratology; or the treatment of 

2 emergency cases of anaphylactic shock (with subcutaneous 

3 epinephrine, such as that included in a bee sting kit).’’.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 7, 2017

p0531

Order 

Clerk

June 7, 2017

154748

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154748

COA: 333163

Wayne CC: 77-006407-FC

JOHN R. PORTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2016 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jermaine Walker","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jwalke32\/","title":"Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex, 1969","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7xA54gAfAm\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/canberra-1969-01\/\">Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex, 1969<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/canberra-1969-01\/embed\/#?secret=7xA54gAfAm\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex, 1969” — NASA\" data-secret=\"7xA54gAfAm\" 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\/2023\/08\/canberra-1969-01.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":479}
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAFRON HUOT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35129 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00059-BMM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018**

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Safron Huot appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to the termination of her parental 

rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 

 

* 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

JUN 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35129 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal 

under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 

(9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Huot’s action for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Huot’s claims constituted 

a forbidden de facto appeal of a prior state court judgment or were inextricably 

intertwined with that judgment. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003)

(discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs 

v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine 

barred plaintiff’s claim because the relief sought “would require the district court 

to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).

AFFIRMED.
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

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 REGI U.S., Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending April 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
Vandeberg, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

| | 1. | I have reviewed the Report;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | 2. | based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any
      untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
      necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
      which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
      covered by the Report; and
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | 3. | based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
      other financial information included in the Report, fairly present in all
      material respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash
      flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in the
      Report.                      

Date: August 14, 2006

/s/ James Vandeberg James Vandeberg, Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Troy Holmes,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03841-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Marc J Bern & Partners LLP

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/23/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

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) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8580 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8580 Filed 11/03/17 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michele Ostovar","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/michele-e-ostovarnasa-gov\/","title":"NASA and Archaeology from Space","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5xcBi1uhhB\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/nasa-and-archaeology-from-space\/\">NASA and Archaeology from Space<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/nasa-and-archaeology-from-space\/embed\/#?secret=5xcBi1uhhB\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA and Archaeology from Space” — NASA\" data-secret=\"5xcBi1uhhB\" 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\/2023\/01\/nasa-and-archaeology.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":577}