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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3726 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3726

 To amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 to provide for continued 
   payment of railroad retirement annuities by the Department of the 
                   Treasury, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 2006

 Mr. Santorum introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 to provide for continued 
   payment of railroad retirement annuities by the Department of the 
                   Treasury, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Railroad Retirement Technical 
Improvement Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. DISBURSEMENT AGENT.

    Section 7(b)(4)(A) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 
U.S.C. 231f(b)(4)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(A) The Secretary of the Treasury shall serve as the 
        disbursing agent for benefits payable under this Act, under 
        such rules and regulations as the Secretary, in the Secretary's 
        discretion, may prescribe.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3853 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

39–25 61st Street in Woodside, New York, as the ‘‘Thomas J. Manton 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 39–25 61st Street in Woodside, New York, 

as the ‘‘Thomas J. Manton Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. THOMAS J. MANTON POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 39–25 61st Street in Woodside, 

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Thomas 

7 J. Manton Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3853 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Thomas J. Manton 

3 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4081 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4081

   To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 5, 2006

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Leahy) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 
2006''.

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE DETAINED BY THE UNITED 
              STATES.

    (a) In General.--Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by striking subsection (e).
    (b) Title 10.--Section 950j of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
    ``(b) Limited Review of Military Commission Procedures and 
Actions.--Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or in section 
2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court, justice, or judge 
shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of 
action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the 
date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating 
to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under 
this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of 
military commissions under this chapter.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY.

    The amendments made by this Act shall--
            (1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; 
        and
            (2) apply to any case that is pending on or after the date 
        of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mario Lamont JOHNSON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-6217.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 29, 2009.

Mario Lamont Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mario Lamont Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Johnson contends that he was entitled to a reduction under Amendment 706 of the *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*(“USSG”), which lowered the base offense levels for drug offenses involving cocaine base. *See*USSG § 2Dl.l(c) (2007 & Supp.2008); USSG App C. Amend. 706. Because Johnson was sentenced on the basis of his status as a career offender, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion. *See United States v. Sharkey,*543 F.3d 1236, 1238-39 (10th Cir.2008); *United States v. Moore,*541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008); *United States v. Thomas,*524 F.3d 889, 889-90 (8th Cir.2008).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *United States v. Johnson,*No. 5:04-cr-00270-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2009). We also deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 413 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 413

To amend the definition of disaster, for purposes of section 7(b)(2) of 
 the Small Business Act, to include below average water levels in the 
                              Great Lakes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 17, 2005

   Mr. Levin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the definition of disaster, for purposes of section 7(b)(2) of 
 the Small Business Act, to include below average water levels in the 
                              Great Lakes.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF DISASTER.

    Section 3(k) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(k)) is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(k)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) For purposes of section 7(b)(2), the term `disaster' includes 
below average water levels in the Great Lakes.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Walsh, Appellant.

[869 NYS2d 910]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated December 24, 2001 *(People v Walsh,*289 AD2d 517 [2001]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 3, 2000.

*647Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz, 2*NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, EJ., Mastro, Santucci and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### YUEN REN LIN, a.k.a. Yong Rong Lin, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74922.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2009.*

Filed April 29, 2009.

Fengling Liu, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Esq., Margaret K. Taylor, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Yuen Ren Lin, a.k.a. Yong Rong Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or recon*528sider, *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny in part, and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA properly construed Lin’s third motion to reopen as a motion to reconsider, and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact that would justify granting relief. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); *see also Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir.2003).

Lin contends that his removal proceedings should be reopened on the basis of changed circumstances because he has married a U.S. citizen and seeks to apply for adjustment of status. However, we lack jurisdiction to review this contention because he failed to raise this issue before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

This court also lacks jurisdiction to review Lin’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of his second motion to reopen because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See Andia v. Ashcroft,*359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 443

AN ACT

To improve the investigation of criminal antitrust offenses.

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 ‘‘Antitrust Criminal In5 vestigative Improvements Act of 2005’’.
 †

2

S 443 ES

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF PREDICATE CRIMES FOR AUTHOR2 IZATION FOR INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ORAL,

3 AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

4 Section 2516(1) of title 18, United State Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) in subparagraph (q), by striking ‘‘or’’ after

7 the semicolon;

8 (2) by redesignating subparagraph (r) as sub9 paragraph (s); and

10 (3) by adding after subparagraph (q) the fol11 lowing:

12 ‘‘(r) any criminal violation of section 1 (relating

13 to illegal restraints of trade or commerce), 2 (relat14 ing to illegal monopolizing of trade or commerce), or

15 3 (relating to illegal restraints of trade or commerce

16 in territories or the District of Columbia) of the

17 Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1, 2, 3); or’’.

Passed the Senate October 25, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 443

AN ACT

To improve the investigation of criminal antitrust

offenses.
exhibit10-2.htm


    
      

    

    Back
      to
      Form 8-K

    
      Exhibit
        10.2

      


       

      WELLCARE
        HEALTH PLANS, INC.

      


      Summary
        of Compensation for Non-Employee Directors

      


      Effective
        for the first fiscal quarter
        following June 12, 2007, the compensation payable to the non-employee members
        of
        the board of directors of WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (the
“Company”) shall be as follows:

      


      
        	
                ·  

              	
                An
                  annual retainer of $37,500, payable quarterly in
                  arrears.

              


      

      


      
        	
                ·  

              	
                Each
                  non-chair member of the audit committee shall receive an additional
                  annual
                  retainer of $5,000, payable quarterly in
                  arrears.

              


      

      


      
        	
                ·  

              	
                The
                  chairperson of the audit committee shall receive an additional
                  annual
                  retainer of $10,000, payable quarterly in
                  arrears.

              


      

      


      
        	
                ·  

              	
                Each
                  non-chair member of the compensation committee shall receive an
                  additional
                  annual retainer of $2,000, payable quarterly in
                  arrears.

              


      

      


      
        	
                ·  

              	
                The
                  chairperson of the compensation committee shall receive an additional
                  annual retainer of $2,500, payable quarterly in
                  arrears.

              


      

      


      
        	
                ·  

              	
                Each
                  director shall be reimbursed for customary expenses for attending
                  all
                  board of directors, committee and stockholder
                  meetings.

              


      

      


      
        	
                ·  

              	
                Directors
                  are also eligible for discretionary grants of equity under the
                  2004 Equity
                  Incentive Plan (or any other or successor
                  plan).
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-235-3-017-CV

IN RE DONALD JAMES LUNSFORD21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL A:	DAUPHINOT, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and GARDNER, LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 6, 2005January 21, 2003
#### Imogene LONG, Plaintiff, v. June Dean HANK, Defendant.

No. 68-15 Civ.

United States District Court E. D. Oklahoma.

March 11, 1968.

*373Carl W. Longmire, Pryor, Okl., for plaintiff.

Richard L. Carpenter, Jr., of Sanders, McElroy & Whitten, Tulsa, Okl., for defendant.

ORDER

DAUGHERTY, District Judge.

Upon consideration of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed herein on January 30, 1968, with reference to the above case, the Court finds that the same should be overruled.

An earlier case involving the same parties and subject matter under Case No. 67-211 was dismissed in this Court on December 19, 1967. Said case was dismissed by the Plaintiff on December 19, 1967, pursuant to Rule 41(a) (1), F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., at which time the Defendant had not filed therein an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In these circumstances, an Order of the Court was not necessary to a dismissal of the case and the provisions of Rule 41(a) (2) for an Order of the Court and the imposition of such terms and conditions as the Court deems proper did not apply.

As to the payment of the court costs in Case No. 67-211, the Plaintiff dismissed the same at its costs. No doubt the Plaintiff paid the costs in the State Court. The Defendant deposited a $15.00 court cost deposit in the case in this Court on removal and apparently expended $10.00 for the necessary removal bond. The Defendant claims in the pending motion that these two items and a claim now made for attorneys’ fees and traveling expenses therein should be considered as the court costs in said case. The Defendant then asserts that because he has not recovered his court costs in Case No. 67-211 the same has not been effectively dismissed and therefore this action will not lie and should be dismissed.

It appears that the Defendant has never presented a Bill of Costs in Case No. 67-211 for consideration and disposition pursuant to established procedure.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, being thus grounded on the pendency of a prior suit, is without merit, as the remedy allowed her in this situation is expressed in Rule 41(d), F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A.:

> “(d) *Costs of Previously-Dismissed Action.*If a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action in any court commences an action based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court may make such order for the payment of costs of the action previously dismissed as it may deem proper and may stay the proceedings in the action until the plaintiff has complied with the order.”

By reason of Rule 41(d), supra, the Court concludes that the settlement of the court costs in Case No. 67-211 has no effect on the validity and effectiveness of the Plaintiff’s dismissal of such case, and in the discretion of the Court, the case at bar will not be stayed pending the Defendant’s claim for her costs in Case No. 67-211. If the Defendant desires, she may proceed under Rule 41(d), supra.

The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.

The Defendant will answer the complaint of the Plaintiff within fifteen days from the date hereof.
Exhibit 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 U.S.C. SETION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Gold Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
A. Garrison, the President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating 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, following due inquiry, that I
believe 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.


Dated:  May 20, 2003                    GLOBAL GOLD CORPORATION


                                        By:
                                            ----------------------
                                            Robert A. Garrison
                                            President, Chief Financial Officer
                                            and Chief Operating Officer
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Rafael
Pinedo, hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
      Chancery Resources, Inc. for the year ended November 30, 2009 (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 Chancery Resources,
    Inc.




Dated:
March 12, 2010





/s/ Rafael PinedoRafael
      PinedoPresident
      and Director(Principal
      Executive Officer)Chancery
      Resources, Inc.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Chancery Resources, Inc. and will be
retained by Chancery Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3893 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the adjusted 

gross income limitation for qualified performing artists eligible for an 

above-the-line deduction for performance expenses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the adjusted gross income limitation for qualified performing artists eligible for an above-the-line deduction 

for performance expenses. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASED ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME LIMITA4 TION FOR QUALIFIED PERFORMING ARTISTS 

5 ELIGIBLE FOR ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION 

6 FOR PERFORMANCE EXPENSES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 62(b)(1)(C) of the Inter8 nal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified performing 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3893 IS

1 artist) is amended by striking ‘‘$16,000’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘$30,000’’. 

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—Section 62(b) of 

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(4) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the case of 

7 any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 

8 2010, the dollar amount contained in paragraph 

9 (1)(C) shall be increased by an amount equal to— 

10 ‘‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

11 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter12 mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar 

13 year in which the taxable year begins, deter14 mined by substituting ‘calendar year 2009’ for 

15 ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) 

16 thereof. 

17 Any increase determined under the preceding sen18 tence shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of 

19 $50.’’. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

22 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS