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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2398 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2398

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit smoking on the 
premises of any facility of the Veterans Health Administration, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

 Mr. Wenstrup (for himself and Ms. Underwood) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit smoking on the 
premises of any facility of the Veterans Health Administration, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON SMOKING IN FACILITIES OF THE VETERANS HEALTH 
              ADMINISTRATION.

    (a) Prohibition.--Section 1715 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 1715. Prohibition on smoking in facilities of the Veterans 
              Health Administration
    ``(a) Prohibition.--No person (including any veteran, patient, 
resident, employee of the Department, contractor, or visitor) may smoke 
on the premises of any facility of the Veterans Health Administration.
    ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
            ``(1) The term `smoke' includes--
                    ``(A) the use of cigarettes, cigars, pipes, and any 
                other combustion or heating of tobacco; and
                    ``(B) the use of any electronic nicotine delivery 
                system, including electronic or e-cigarettes, vape 
                pens, and e-cigars.
            ``(2) The term `facility of the Veterans Health 
        Administration' means any land or building (including any 
        medical center, nursing home, domiciliary facility, outpatient 
        clinic, or center that provides readjustment counseling) that 
        is--
                    ``(A) under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
                Veterans Affairs;
                    ``(B) under the control of the Veterans Health 
                Administration; and
                    ``(C) not under the control of the General Services 
                Administration.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Table of sections.--The table of sections at the 
        beginning of chapter 17 of such title is amended by striking 
        the item relating to section 1715 and inserting the following:

``1715. Prohibition on smoking in facilities of the Veterans Health 
                            Administration.''.
            (2) Veterans health care act of 1992.--Section 526 of the 
        Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-585) is 
        repealed.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Annemarie GUILLORY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10959

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 30, 2009.

Christopher R. Wolfe, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Annemarie Guillory appeals the district court’s revocation of her term of supervised release and the imposition of a 24-month term of imprisonment. More particularly, she argues that the district court erred by adding as a condition of supervised release that she abstain from using alcohol and by revoking her supervised release based on her violation of that condition.

Because Guillory agreed to the inclusion of this condition, the Government argues that any error is unreviewable “invited error.” However, even if the error was invited, we review for plain error “out of an abundance of caution.” *United States v. Fernandez-Cusco,*447 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir.2006).

Guillory argues that the district court plainly erred because the condition was not reasonably related to her underlying offense of aecess device fraud. The imposition of a condition of supervised release must be “reasonably related” to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, the deterrence of criminal conduct, the protection of the public from any further crimes of the defendant, and the defendant’s correctional needs. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D).

In the instant case, given Guillory’s acknowledged problems with alcohol and her arrest record for alcohol related offenses, including driving while intoxicated, the imposition of the condition that she abstain from alcohol use was not plain error. Although this prohibition was not necessarily related to her underlying offense, it was clearly related to her history and characteristics, the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and the need to protect the public from further crimes. *See United States v. Ferguson,*369 F.3d *345847, 853 (5th Cir.2004). Moreover, because Guillory conceded that she drank alcohol on at least one occasion, the district court did not err in revoking supervised release on that basis. *See*§ 3583(e)(3).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,550]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 11, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Ceridian Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

      ( print page 21829)    
Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of April 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10877 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
From: The District Court of the 8th Judicial District. County of Cascade.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JESSE SINK, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. ADC-07-566 DECISION

On January 14, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to forty (40) years in the Montana State Prison, with twenty (20) years suspended, for the offense of Count I: Aggravated Burglary, a felony.

On May 7, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Kenneth Olson. The state was represented by John Parker.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

*43Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of May, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
##### 



Exhibit 10.4 
  Securities Demand Letter
 
  Commitment Letter Arranger Financing NNI NNC Company JPMCB
 Lead Investment Bank Securities Offering provided Securities Demand




---



##### 



Very truly yours,J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES INC.By:
    
    /s/ Bruce Borden

Name: Bruce BordenTitle: Vice PresidentJPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.By:
    
    /s/ David M. MallettName: David M. MallettTitle: Vice President
 -2-




---



##### 



ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO
AS OF THE DATE FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN:NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Katharine B. Stevenson

Name: Katharine B. StevensonTitle: TreasurerBy:
    
    /s/ Gordon A. DaviesName: Gordon A. DaviesTitle: General Counsel  Corporate andCorporate SecretaryNORTEL NETWORKS INC.By:
    
    /s/ Lynn C. EganName: Lynn C. EganTitle: Assistant Secretary
 -3-
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00368-CR

TERVON LEE BASPED, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District 

Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1543547R)

October 25, 2018

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the inclusion in this Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement
No. 333-126936 on Form F-4 of Henry Birks & Sons Inc. of our report dated June
6, 2003 (June 22, 2005 as to the effects of Note B), relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Mayor's Jewelers, Inc. for the
year ended March 29, 2003. We also consent to the reference to us under the
heading "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration
Statement.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


Miami, FL
September 27, 2005
Exhibit 32




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 Amended Quarterly Report of Global Health Voyager, Inc. (the "Registrant")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Ali Moussavi, Principal Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant,
certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Registrant.


Dated:  October
19, 2011

/s/ Ali MoussaviAli MoussaviPrincipal Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial Officer
exv10w21



 





Exhibit 10.21




comScore, Inc.

11465 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 200

Reston, Virginia 20190




May 25, 2007




Citadel Equity Fund Ltd.

131 South Dearborn

37th Floor

Chicago, IL 60603

Fax: (312) 977-0250




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Re:
	 	Termination of Board Observer Right





Dear Sir or Madam:




     Pursuant to Section 6 of that certain Fourth Amended and Restated Investor Rights Agreement,
dated as of August 1, 2003 (the “Investor Rights Agreement”), by and among the comScore Networks,
Inc. (now comScore, Inc.) (the “Company”), the Purchasers and the Founders (as such terms are
defined therein), Citadel Equity Fund Ltd. or its affiliates (“Citadel”) have the right to
designate one individual as an observer at all meetings of the Company’s Board of Directors (and
any committees thereof) and to receive any materials distributed to the members of the Company’s
Board of Directors (and any committees thereof) (the “Board Observer Rights”).



     In light of the fact that Citadel sold all of its capital stock of the Company on November 27,
2006, comScore would like to clarify that Citadel no longer holds Board Observer Rights.
Accordingly, by executing this letter agreement, Citadel agrees that the Board Observer Rights are
terminated and that the Investor Rights Agreement shall be amended such that the Board Observer
Rights that Citadel may still hold are deleted from the Investor Rights Agreement and shall have no
further force and effect.



[Signature Page Follows]




 









 







     Please acknowledge Citadel’s agreement to the foregoing by executing this letter agreement in
the space provided below and returning the same to my attention. Please do not hesitate to contact
me at (703) 438-2111 with any questions.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,


COMSCORE, INC.,

a Delaware corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Christiana Lin
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Christiana Lin 	 
	 	 	Title:  	General Counsel 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	CITADEL EQUITY FUND LTD.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	Citadel Limited Partnership, Portfolio Manager	 	 
	By:

	 	GLB Partners, L.P., its General Partner	 	 
	By:

	 	Citadel Investment Group, L.L.C., its General Partner	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Matthew Hinerfeld	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Name: Matthew Hinerfeld	 	 
	Title:
  Managing Director and Deputy General 
            Counsel
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3804 

To prohibit commercial air tour operations over Kalaupapa National Historical Park, Kaloko-Honoko ̄hau National Historical Park, Pu‘uhonua o 

Ho ̄naunau National Historical Park, and Pu‘ukohola Heiau National 

Historic Site. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To prohibit commercial air tour operations over Kalaupapa 

National Historical Park, Kaloko-Honoko ̄hau National 

Historical Park, Pu‘uhonua o Ho ̄naunau National Historical Park, and Pu‘ukohola Heiau National Historic 

Site. 

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 ‘‘Hawaiian Sacred Sites 

5 Noise Reduction Act of 2006’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 3804 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF AIR TOURS. 

2 Section 806 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Invest3 ment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 

4 40128 note; 114 Stat. 194) is amended— 

5 (1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘OVER

6 THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘OVER CERTAIN UNITS OF NATIONAL

8 PARK SYSTEM’’; 

9 (2) by striking ‘‘Effective’’ and inserting the 

10 following: 

11 ‘‘(a) MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK.—Effective’’; and 

12 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(b) NATIONAL PARK UNITS IN THE STATE OF HA14 WAII.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or 

15 section 40126 of title 49, United States Code, effective 

16 beginning on the date of enactment of the Hawaiian Sa17 cred Sites Noise Reduction Act of 2006, no commercial 

18 air tour operation may be conducted in the airspace over— 

19 ‘‘(1) the Kalaupapa National Historical Park; 

20 ‘‘(2) the Kaloko-Honoko ̄hau National Historical 

21 Park; 

22 ‘‘(3) the Pu‘uhonua o Ho ̄naunau National His23 torical Park; or 

24 ‘‘(4) the Pu‘ukohola Heiau National Historic 

25 Site.’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 3804 IS

1 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

3 as are necessary to carry out this Act and amendments 

4 made by this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
663 A.2d 637

#### IN THE MATTER OF HARVEY M. VAN SCIVER, JR., AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW.

September 12, 1995.

CONSENT ORDER

Harvey M. Van Sciver, Jr. of Beverly having been ordered to show cause on October 12,1994, why he should not be temporarily suspended from the practice and compelled to pay a monetary sanction for failure to pay a fee arbitration award, and it appearing that the Office of Attorney Ethics and respondent through *426appointed counsel have agreed that respondent is presently unable to engage in the practice of law and should be transferred to disability inactive status in accordance with R. l:20-12(b).

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to *R. l:20-12(b)*Harvey M. Van Sciver, Jr. of Beverly, admitted to practice in this state in 1980, is hereby transferred to disability inactive status, effective immediately, pending final determination of all grievances, and until further Order of the Court.

2. Harvey M. Van Sciver, Jr. is hereby restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period that he remains on disability inactive status.

3. Harvey M. Van Sciver, Jr. shall, comply with *R. 1:20-20*governing suspended, disbarred and incapacitated attorneys.
* 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

June 27, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10155

Summary Calendar

TOMMY HAYNES,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

COLE JETER, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution - Fort

Worth,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CV-6

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

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tommy Haynes, federal prisoner # 25197-177, pleaded guilty

to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of

amphetamine and was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment to be

followed by three years of supervised release. Haynes challenges

his underlying conviction and sentence, arguing that the district

court erred by denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in that it

failed to perform “an actual innocence analysis” which would have

shown that he has been incarcerated for an offense to which he
No. 06-10155

-2-

neither pleaded guilty nor was found guilty by a jury. Haynes

also asserts that he is entitled to proceed under the savings

clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as he is actually innocent of the

offense of which he was convicted. Haynes seeks remand to the

district court for an evidentiary hearing or resentencing. 

Although Haynes seeks to proceed under § 2241 pursuant to

the savings clause of § 2255, he has not shown that the remedy

available under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. See

Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.

2001); Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). To the

extent Haynes argues that the United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220 (2005), or Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), lines

of authority apply retroactively to cases on collateral review

and entitle him to file a § 2241 petition, his argument is

unavailing in light of Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424,

426-27 (5th Cir. 2005). Haynes is hereby warned that submitting

repetitive or frivolous filings in the future will invite the

imposition of sanctions.

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0589

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RYAN PATRICK SULLIVAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 16, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Jim Rice

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 7 2021

06/07/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0589
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

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel; BioTechnology 2 SEP.                    

*Date:*                         June 25, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lee Warren Slice, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Review, National Center for Research Resources, 6701 Democracy Blvd. Room 1068, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0965.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 93.306, 93.333; 93.702, ARRA Related Construction Awards., National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: May 4, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-10804 Filed 5-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P