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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2012 

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

and Human Services, The Administration for Children and Families, 

Children and Families Services 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 Education and the Workforce, and in addition 

to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and 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 Health and Human Services, The Administration for Children and Families, Children and Families 

Services Programs 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2012 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV3 ICES, THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN 

4 AND FAMILIES, CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 

5 SERVICES PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Department of Health and Human Services, The 

9 Administration for Children and Families, Children and 

10 Families Services Programs for fiscal year 2024 may not 

11 exceed $12,239,225,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexis M. Cruz, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 538]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated July 5, 2012, as, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant was designated a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, upon the County Court’s exercise of discretion to upwardly depart from the defendant’s presumptive risk level. An upward departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted “where ‘there exists an aggravating . . . factor of a kind or to a degree not otherwise adequately taken into account’ ” by the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) Guidelines *(People v Bowens,*55 AD3d 809, 810 [2008], quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]; *see People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d 112, 120 [2011]; *People v White,*25 AD3d 677 [2006]; *People v Dexter,*21 AD3d 403, 404 [2005]; *People v Guaman,*8 AD3d 545 [2004]). “[T]he cited aggravating factor must tend to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community,” and “the People must prove the facts in support of the aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence” *(People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d at 123; *see People v Campbell,*98 AD3d 5, 13 [2012]).

Here, the People presented clear and convincing evidence of the existence of aggravating factors not otherwise adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines, which established *686a higher likelihood of reoffense and danger to the community. Specifically, the People proffered the defendant’s admission to having sexually abused the victim on one prior occasion *(see People v Geier,*56 AD3d 539 [2008]; *People v Hammonds,*27 AD3d 441, 442 [2006]), as well as the public and conspicuous nature of the offense, which reflected the defendant’s “lack of inhibition and insight into and concern for the inappropriateness of his conduct” *(People v Walker,*105 AD3d 1154, 1155 [2013]). Based upon these aggravating factors, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in upwardly departing from the presumptive risk level *(see People v Worley,*57 AD3d 753, 754 [2008]; *People v Villane,*49 AD3d 517 [2008]). Rivera, J.E, Skelos, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEROY G. WILSON, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0300-CG-C

)

BP EXPLORATION & 

PRODUCTION INC., et al.,

)

)

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The Plaintiff having filed a Voluntary Motion to Dismiss on January 13, 2016 

(Doc. 48), in which Plaintiff’s counsel represents that counsel for the Defendants 

consent to the motion, this action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant 

to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Each party shall bear his 

or its own costs.

DONE and ORDERED this the 28th day of January, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00300-CG-C Document 50 Filed 01/28/16 Page 1 of 1
-• W., -$2:..",§721.5-44r.:45Ertlz=5:2-P, 

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

Devin Lanford 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Carson City District Attorney 

Carson City Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A •, • _ 

2
EXHIBIT 32.2CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Sycamore
Networks, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard J. Gaynor, Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                   
|/s/    RICHARD J. GAYNOR                                           
|Richard J. Gaynor                                                  
|Chief Financial Officer, Vice President Finance and Administration,
|Assistant Secretary and Treasurer                                  
|June 21, 2007
#### Tammy CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF the TREASURY, Respondent.

No. 2006-3366.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 11, 2007.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of Tammy Cunningham’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss this petition for review,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Javo Beverage Company, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Cody C.
      Ashwell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant
      to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
      knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/
                Richard A. GartrellRichard
                A. Gartrell
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              March
                16, 2007





[A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Javo Beverage Company, Inc. and will be retained by Javo Beverage Company,
      Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.]
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA DEL SAGRARIO MEZALORETO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72168

Agency No. A095-663-525

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Maria Del Sagrario Meza-Loreto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her 

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,

FILED

MAR 02 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72168

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings and review de novo its legal conclusions. Benyamin

v. Holder, 579 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

Meza-Loreto does not contend she suffered past persecution in Mexico.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if Meza-Loreto is a

member of a particular social group, her fear of future persecution is not

objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)

(fear of future persecution too speculative). In addition, Meza-Loreto’s claim that

she fears persecution in Pakistan fails because that is not her country of nationality. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).

Because Meza-Loreto failed to meet her burden to establish eligibility for

asylum, she necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding

of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief

because Meza-Loreto failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she

would face torture if returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066,

1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 10.34

 

AGREEMENT TO EXTEND

 

April 16, 2015

 

Reference is hereby made to (i) the Equity Purchase Agreement, dated as of February 24, 2015, by and among General Maritime Corp. (“GenMar”), Navig8 Crude Tankers, Inc. (“Navig8”) and each of the Commitment Parties thereto (the “Commitment Parties”) (the “Agreement”) and (ii) the Amendment to Equity Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 19, 2015, by and among GenMar, Navig8 and the Commitment Parties (the “Amendment” and, together with the Agreement, the “Amended Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Amended Agreement.

 

The parties hereto hereby acknowledge and agree pursuant to Section 2.1(a) of the Amended Agreement that any shareholder who returns its Pathfinder Letter to GenMar by 12:00 P.M. (New York City time) on April 15, 2015 shall be deemed eligible to receive a Purchase Offer as further provided by that Section 2.1.

 

[Signature pages follow]

 











 

Accepted and agreed as of the

date first above written:

 

	
 
    	
GENERAL   MARITIME CORP.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   L J Vrondissis
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
L J Vrondissis
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
CFO EVP
    


 

[Signature page to Agreement to Extend]

 











 

Accepted and agreed as of the

date first above written:

 

	
 
    	
NAVIG8   CRUDE TANKERS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Daniel Chu
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Daniel Chu
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Secretary
    


 

[Signature page to Agreement to Extend]

 











 

Schedule of Substantially Identical Issuer Contracts Omitted

 

Agreement to Extend, dated March 30, 2015, that certain Equity Purchase Agreement, dated February 24, 2015, by and among General Maritime Corp., Navig8 Crude Tankers, Inc. and each of the Commitment Parties thereto
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MICHAEL C. HEIL AND MARY KATHERINE HEIL, H/W

v.

DIOCESE OF SCRANTON, BISHOP

JAMES TIMLIN AND BISHOP JOSEPH

BAMBERA

PETITION OF: DIOCESE OF

SCRANTON AND BISHOP JOSEPH

BAMBERA :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 120 MM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of November , 2019, the Application for Extraordinary

Relief is DENIED.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1996 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, and the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. ofour reports dated December 1, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc., includedin the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 27, 2008. 

/s/ ERNST &YOUNG LLP 

San Diego, California 

December 4,2008
#### In re Ronnie R. LITTLE, Petitioner.

No. 07-7456.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2007.

Decided: Dec. 28, 2007.

Ronnie R. Little, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie R. Little petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the North Carolina state court to correct his sentence calculation. We conclude that Little is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, *Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County,*411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, *District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).

The relief sought by Little is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LEWIS TAYLOR, :

 : 

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0018-CG-M

: 

STATE OF ALABAMA, : 

 :

Defendant. : 

 

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of May, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00018-CG-M Document 11 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Angeles Partners X (the"Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), StevenD. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership,and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE PUBLIC COMPANY
ACCOUNTING REFORM AND INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted, the
"Sarbanes-Oxley Act"), Jerome K. Thorson, the Chief Executive Officer
of 3Si Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that, to the
best of his knowledge:

1.
The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as
Exhibit 32.01 (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.
The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at
the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of
operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic
Report.

Dated: November 13, 2003

/s/ Jerome K. Thorson

Jerome K. Thorson
Chief Executive Officer

Note: This certification accompanies the Periodic Report pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and shall not be deemed "filed" by
the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.
EX-10.7



 Exhibit 10.7 

FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO

 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This First Amendment (the “First Amendment”) to that certain Employment Agreement between Seres Therapeutics, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (together with any successor thereto, the “Company”), and Eric D. Shaff (the “Executive”) dated as of June 16, 2015 (the “Employment Agreement”) is made as of August
7, 2015 (the “Amendment Date”), by and among the Company and the Executive. 
 WITNESSETH 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the terms of the Employment Agreement as set forth herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the
Executive hereby agree to the following: 
 1. Amendment to the Employment Agreement. Effective as of the Amendment Date,
Section 4(b)(i) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
 (i) an
amount in cash equal to the Annual Base Salary, payable in the form of salary continuation in regular installments over the 12-month period following the date of Executive’s Separation from Service (the “Severance Period”) in
accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices; 
 2. No Other Amendment. Except as expressly set forth in this First
Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms. 
 3.
Counterparts. This First Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one document. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the Amendment Date. 

 

			
	 SERES THERAPEUTICS, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Roger J. Pomerantz

	 Name: Roger J. Pomerantz

	 Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

	
	 EXECUTIVE

	
	 /s/ Eric D. Shaff

	 Eric D. Shaff
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                 SELECTICA, INC.

                            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 Selectica, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Y. Hsu, Vice
President of Finance and Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

       (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

       (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

Date: June 14, 2004



/s/STEPHEN Y. HSU
-----------------------------------------------------
Stephen Y. Hsu
Vice President of Finance and Controller
#### 112 East 35th Street, LLC, Respondent, v The New York Society of the New Church, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 202]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered on or about January 9, 2012, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed without prejudice the first cause of action, which seeks a declaration with respect to the parties’ “Utilities Agreement,” and the third cause of action, which seeks money damages, and, upon the second cause of action, enjoined defendant from ceasing to provide utilities to the residential building purchased by plaintiff, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the first and third causes of action, and to remand the matter for review of the utilities agreement pursuant to Religious Corporations Law § 12, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We hold that the parties’ utilities agreement requires court approval, pursuant to Religious Corporations Law § 12 (1), because it modifies the parties’ previously approved purchase agreement *(see Beacon Term. Corp. v Chemprene, Inc.,*75 AD2d 350, 354 [2d Dept 1980], *lv denied*51 NY2d 706 [1980]; *see also*Religious Corporations Law § 12 [9]).

In *light*of plaintiffs lack of other access to gas, steam, and electricity, we find that the injunction against defendant’s termination of utilities to the residential building should remain in effect until this matter is resolved. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrew Spoto, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 923]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Camacho, J.), imposed October 11, 2012, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes *930review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]). Eng, P.J, Mastro, Dickerson, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.