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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2271 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2271

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
    of Agriculture, Rural Development Programs for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
                referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
    of Agriculture, Rural Development Programs for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Rural Development Programs for fiscal year 2024 may not 
exceed $1,580,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NICOR, INC. (doing business as Nicor Lighting & Fans), Defendant-Appellee, and Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and Zhejiang Dongzheng Electrical Co., Ltd., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2007-1571.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 11, 2007.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of Levitón Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Exhibit 10.1


 





AMENDMENT #1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED


MASTER FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT


 


 


This AMENDMENT #1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
MASTER FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT (this “Amendment #1”) is made and entered into as of April 1, 2015 (“Amendment
Effective Date”), by and between Amyris, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Amyris”), and Total Energies
Nouvelles Activités USA, SAS (formerly known as Total Gas & Power USA, SAS), a société par actions
simplifiée organized under the laws of the Republic of France (“Total”), and amends the Amended and
Restated Master Framework Agreement, dated as of December 2, 2013, by and between Amyris and Total (the “Master Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend Article
6 of the Master Agreement; and


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants contained
in this Amendment #1, the Parties agree as follows:


 


		1.	Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used in this Amendment #1 have the same meaning as
in the Master Agreement except as otherwise noted.



 


		2.	Amend Article 6. Pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Master Agreement, the Parties hereby delete
Article 6 (including Section 6.1) of the Master Agreement in its entirety and replace it with the following:



 


“ARTICLE 6


RESERVED”


 


		3.	No Other Changes. The Master Agreement is amended only to the extent expressly set forth
herein, and all other terms of the Master Agreement shall remain the same and are not affected by this Amendment #1.



 


		4.	Counterparts. This Amendment #1 may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Amendment #1 may be executed
by facsimile or other electronic signatures, and such signatures shall be deemed to bind each Party as if they were original signatures.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this
Amendment #1 to be executed as of the Amendment Effective Date by their respective duly authorized officers below.


 


 





	AMYRIS, INC.	TOTAL ENERGIES NOUVELLES ACTIVITÉS USA, SAS
	 	 
	
        By:  /s/ Nicholas Khadder

        Name: Nicholas Khadder

        Title: General Counsel
	By: /s/ Jean-Marc Otero del Val

Name: Jean-Marc Otero del Val

Title: Managing Director
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2193 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2193

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Environmental 
   Protection Agency, Buildings and Facilities for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
 the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Agriculture, and 
    Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Environmental 
   Protection Agency, Buildings and Facilities for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 
              PROTECTION AGENCY, BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Environmental Protection 
Agency, Buildings and Facilities for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$34,467,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### Tala PRESLEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-56853.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Decided June 19, 2006.

Unit 77, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff— Appellant.

Constance M. Komoroski, Esq., USLA— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Civil *&*Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, Peter K. Thompson, Gov., Social Security Adminis*663tration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant — Appellee.

Before WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Tala Presley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determining that Presley was not entitled to benefits greater than the amount calculated by the Social Security Administration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s order upholding the ALJ’s decision, and we review for substantial evidence the ALJ’s decision. *Batson v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.,*359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Presley received the correct monthly disability benefit amount. On appeal, Presley does not challenge the evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision; rather, she contends that she should be entitled to the higher benefit amount she obtained using an online benefit calculator on the Social Security Administration’s website. As the district court explained, however, Presley’s online calculation is not reliable. Among other things, Presley calculated her retirement benefits, not her disability benefits, and her calculation was based on an “indexing year” different from Presley’s correct “indexing year” of 1993. *See*20 C.F.R. § 404.211(d)(1)(h) (a claimant’s indexing year is the second year before the year in which the claimant became disabled).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CORNELIUS SMITH, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 14-0107-WS-B

 )

WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER 

The defendant and plaintiff William Newton have filed a joint renewed 

motion for approval of settlement agreement. (Doc. 144). “When employees 

bring a private action for back wages under the FLSA, and present to the district 

court a proposed settlement, the district court may enter a stipulated judgment 

after scrutinizing the settlement for fairness.” Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United 

States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1982). “[T]he rule of Lynn’s Food Stores

applies to settlements between former employees and employers” just as it does to 

agreements by current employees. Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc., 723 F.3d 1304, 1307 

(11th Cir. 2013). 

The Court is unusually familiar with this case, as it has entered numerous 

rulings on the substantive motions presented by the parties, and the Court has no 

difficulty in concluding that the settlement is fair and reasonable. The Court also 

determines that the releases and confidentiality provisions satisfy the standards 

articulated by the Court in Crabtree v. Volkert, Inc., 2013 WL 593500 (S.D. Ala. 

2013). 

For the reasons set forth above, the joint motion for approval of settlement 

agreement is granted. The parties are ordered to submit, on or before

Case 1:14-cv-00107-WS-B Document 146 Filed 09/03/15 Page 1 of 2
2

September 17, 2015, a proposed stipulated judgment in accordance with 

governing law.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 2015.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00107-WS-B Document 146 Filed 09/03/15 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THERESA ANNE CHABOT,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-287

D.C. No. 9:22-cr-00018-DLC-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Theresa Anne Chabot appeals the inclusion of the standard conditions of 

supervised release in the written judgment, which the court entered following her

guilty-plea conviction for conducting an unlicensed money transmitting business, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

* 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

MAY 1 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-287

We vacate the standard conditions and remand with instructions.

Chabot contends that the district court erred under United States v. Montoya, 

82 F.4th 640 (9th Cir. 2023) (en banc), because it did not orally impose, or provide 

her a list of, the standard conditions of supervised release prior to judgment. 

Although Chabot waived her right to appeal her sentence, the government does not 

seek to enforce the waiver. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 

957 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (appeal waivers are non-jurisdictional and

forfeitable). Instead, it concedes that the district court erred and concurs with 

Chabot that remand is appropriate. Accordingly, we vacate the standard 

supervised release conditions included in the written judgment and remand for the 

limited purpose of permitting the district court to orally pronounce any standard 

conditions it wishes to impose and after giving Chabot an opportunity to object. 

See Montoya, 82 F.4th at 656.

VACATED IN PART and REMANDED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

STEPHEN BELCHER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,

Chief District Judge. (CR-98-53, CA-01-203-2)

Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 9, 2002

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Belcher, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Belcher seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny Belcher’s motion to proceed on appeal

in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss

the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United

States v. Belcher, Nos. CR-98-53; CA-01-2-3-2 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 25,

2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                       729
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,560
<INVENTORY>                                      8,146
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,398
<PP&E>                                          10,114
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,428
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,712
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         43
<COMMON>                                           281
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,316
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,476
<SALES>                                         13,130
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,130
<CGS>                                            9,379
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,949
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,462
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,208)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (35,674)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        36
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (35,710)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (262)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,787)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.52)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1

Bentley Communications Secures $10,000,000 Commitment In Staged Equity Funding.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2001 8:00 AM - PRNewswire

LOS ANGELES, Apr 11, 2001 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Bentley Communications
Corp. (OTC:BTLY) is proud to announce a financing package by a Beverly Hills
based investment firm providing innovative financing solutions. The funding will
be provided, as required, via an equity draw down facility pursuant to a pending
shelf registration.

Forward-looking statements:
Certain statements in this news release may constitute "forward-looking"
statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Such forward-looking statements involve risks, uncertainties and other
factors, which may cause the actual results, performance or achievement
expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements to differ materially
from the forward-looking statements.

SOURCE:  Bentley Communications Corporation
CONTACT: Gordon F. Lee, Chairman & CEO of Bentley Communications
         Corporation, 310-342-0760, or fax 310-342-0704

URL:
http://www.Celebrity-Pros.com
http://www.TwirlMe.com
http://www.BentleyBlvd.com
http://www.BentleyCommCorp.com
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2047 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 

Treasury, Departmental Offices, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the 

Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Treasury, Departmental Offices, Salaries 

and Expenses for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, DEPART5 MENTAL OFFICES, SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

6 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:30 Apr 17, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2047.IH H2047

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2047 IH

1 able for Department of Treasury Departmental Offices, 

2 Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

3 $214,576,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Israel CERVANTES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jim HALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-57184.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 8, 2006.

Filed June 22, 2006.

Philip M. Brooks, Esq., Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Lynne G. McGinnis, Esq., Garrett Beaumont, Esq., AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Israel Cervantes appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Cervantes contends that use of his prior nonjury juvenile adjudications to enhance his sentence under California’s Three Strikes Law violated his due process and jury trial rights. Both contentions fail. The California court’s decision to use Cervantes’ prior juvenile adjudications as predicate offenses in calculating his three strikes was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. *See Boyd v. Newland,*393 F.3d 1008, 1017 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that the “use of [a] juvenile adjudication as a sentencing enhancement was [neither] contrary to,” *691nor did it “involve[ ] an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent.”).

Relying on *Santobello v. New York,*404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), Cervantes also asserts that the use of his juvenile adjudications to enhance his sentence deprived him of due process, because he was assured that those adjudications would not be used against him. However, a critical distinction between *Santobello*and Cervantes’ case is that, as the California Court of Appeal noted, the prosecutor did not enter into a plea bargain with Cervantes. *See Santobello,*404 U.S. at 258, 92 S.Ct. 495. In fact, as the California Court of Appeal also concluded, Cervantes’ reliance was on the law as it existed, rather than on any bargain between him and the prosecution.

Finally, Cervantes argues that his sentence of 25-years-to-life under California’s Three Strikes Law constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. However, this argument fails, because the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply the “gross disproportionality” principle enunciated in *Lockyer v. Andrade,*538 U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Nor did that Court unreasonably apply clearly established federal law to the facts. *See Ewing v. California,*538 U.S. 11, 29, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (plurality opinion) (“In weighing the gravity of [a defendant’s] offense, [a reviewing court] must place on the scales not only his current felony, but also his long history of felony recidivism.”).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2208 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 

of Agriculture, Acquisition of Lands for National Forests Special Acts 

for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Acquisition of Lands for National Forests Special Acts for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACQUISI5 TION OF LANDS FOR NATIONAL FORESTS 

6 SPECIAL ACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for US Department of Agriculture, Acquisition of 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2208 IH

1 Lands for National Forests Special Acts for fiscal year 

2 2024 may not exceed $664,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB