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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 134 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 134

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 29, 2019

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend title 18, United States Code, with regard to stalking.

    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 ``Combat Online Predators Act''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR STALKERS OF CHILDREN.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 2261A the following:
``Sec. 2261B. Enhanced penalty for stalkers of children
    ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), if the 
victim of an offense under section 2261A is under the age of 18 years, 
the maximum imprisonment for the offense is 5 years greater than the 
maximum term of imprisonment otherwise provided for that offense in 
section 2261.
    ``(b) Limitation.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a person who 
violates section 2261A if--
            ``(1) the person is subject to a sentence under section 
        2261(b)(5); and
            ``(2)(A) the person is under the age of 18 at the time the 
        offense occurred; or
            ``(B) the victim of the offense is not less than 15 nor 
        more than 17 years of age and not more than 3 years younger 
        than the person who committed the offense at the time the 
        offense occurred.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 2261A the following new item:

``2261B. Enhanced penalty for stalkers of children.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2261A of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``section 2261(b) of this title'' and 
inserting ``section 2261(b) or section 2261B, as the case may be''.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON BEST PRACTICES REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF ANTI-STALKING 
              LAWS.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Attorney General shall submit a report to Congress, which shall--
            (1) include an evaluation of Federal, Tribal, State, and 
        local efforts to enforce laws relating to stalking; and
            (2) identify and describe those elements of such efforts 
        that constitute the best practices for the enforcement of such 
        laws.

            Passed the Senate October 28, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Case 2:11-cv-02522-SDW-MCA Document 22 Filed 11/26/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 163
Case 2:11-cv-02522-SDW-MCA Document 22 Filed 11/26/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 164
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 23-50325 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee , versus Chelsea Adriana Ballesteros-Saiz, Defendant—Appellant . ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:22-CR-501-1

______________________________ Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges . Per Curiam: * The attorney appointed to repres ent Chelsea Ballesteros-Saiz has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). BallesterosSaiz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant portions of the record.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 6, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50325 Document: 69-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024No. 23-50325

2 We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Ac cordingly, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED . See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 23-50325 Document: 69-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2024
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5029 

To allow a waiver or exemption of certain requirements for restricted airspace 

if security is not reduced. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 

Mr. LATOURETTE (for himself and Mr. KUCINICH) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To allow a waiver or exemption of certain requirements for 

restricted airspace if security is not reduced. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AIR SHOW EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CASES. 

4 Section 521(a)(2) of the Transportation, Treasury, 

5 and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 

6 (Public Law 108–199, div. F) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara8 graph (B)(v); 
2 

•HR 5029 IH 

1 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub2 paragraph (C) and inserting the following: ‘‘; and’’; 

3 and 

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

5 ‘‘(D) to allow the operations of an aircraft 

6 participating in an air show in restricted air7 space if the Administrator of the Federal Avia8 tion Administration determines that the secu9 rity of an event, stadium, or other venue is not 

10 reduced.’’. 

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                               EXHIBIT 10(xxvii)


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                     TO THE
                         KULICKE & SOFFA INDUSTRIES INC.
                      EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

               (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1999)

      WHEREAS, Kulicke & Soffa Industries Inc. (the "Company") maintains the
Kulicke & Soffa Industries Inc. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the
"Plan") for the benefit of its eligible executives; and

      WHEREAS, it was intended to provide for distribution of the Education
Account to provide for the education of a dependent following high school; and

      WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to provide for such
distribution when a dependent completes high school or enters an institution of
higher learning on a full-time basis whether or not such dependent has attained
age 18;

      NOW, THEREFORE, effective January 1, 2001, subsection A prior to the
Payment Method charts and subsection C of Section 5.2 are hereby amended to read
as follows:

      A.    If a Participant with an Education Account remains continuously
            employed by the Employer until January 1 of the calendar year in
            which an Eligible Dependent (i) attains age 18, (ii) will receive a
            high school diploma or (iii) is anticipated to enroll as a full-time
            student in an institution of higher learning, whichever occurs
            first, the Employer shall pay to the Participant a benefit within 30
            days after such January 1 and each of the next three anniversaries
            thereof (the four-year payment method) or each of the next five
            anniversaries thereof (the six-year payment method), as elected by
            the Participant, determined by applying the applicable percentage
            from the appropriate schedule below to the value of the Eligible
            Dependent's Subaccount as of the date of distribution:


      C.    Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, if an Eligible
            Dependent's subaccount has a balance of less than $10,000 on the
            January 1 of the calendar year in which payment is to commence, then
            the balance shall be paid to the Participant in one lump sum.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed this ____ day of
_______________, 2001.

Attest:                                   KULICKE & SOFFA INDUSTRIES INC.


_____________________________             By:_______________________________
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Crispin Leon-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-4001.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2013.

Filed: April 1, 2013.

Daniel C. Tvedt, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Crispin Leon-Lopez, Youngstown, OH, pro se.

John P. Messina, Assistant, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Crispin Leon-Lopez directly appeals after he pled guilty to an illegal-reentry offense and the district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the prison term imposed by the district court is unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Leon-Lopez. *See United States v. Feemster,*572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (review of sentences for abuse of discretion includes (1) ensuring no significant procedural error occurred; and (2) considering substantive reasonableness of sentence under totality of circumstances; where sentence falls within Guidelines range, appeals court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness). Further, having independently reviewed the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Leon-Lopez about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
#### In the Matter of Holli A. Straight, as Senior Child Support Examiner for the Commissioner of Social Services of Saratoga County, on Behalf of Kim Decker, Respondent, v Ronald Skinner, Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

[823 NYS2d 277]

*1176Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Saratoga County (Abramson, J.), entered July 25, 2005, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s application, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, to find respondent in willful violation of a prior order of support.

Petitioner commenced a proceeding on behalf of Kim Decker, alleging that respondent had violated a support order by, among other things, failing to make required child support payments. Following a hearing, a Support Magistrate found that respondent had willfully violated the support order. Family Court denied respondent’s subsequent objections, confirming the finding of willfulness and sentencing respondent to 60 days in jail. Respondent appeals and we now affirm.*

We reject respondent’s argument that Family Court erred in determining that he willfully violated the prior support order. Respondent concedes that petitioner presented prima facie evidence of a willful violation by demonstrating that he was not in compliance with his obligations and, therefore, he bore the burden of establishing “his inability to make the required payments” by “competent, credible evidence” *(Matter of Powers v Powers,*86 NY2d 63, 70 [1995]; *see Matter of Columbia County Support Collection Unit v Demers,*29 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 708 [2006]). Although respondent’s family physician, Richard Pitkin, testified that respondent was disabled from doing physical or manual work due to an arthritic condition, Pitkin conceded that his opinion was based solely on respondent’s subjective complaints, rather than any objective testing. Moreover, petitioner presented conflicting testimony— supported by photographs at the hearing—from other witnesses showing that respondent had engaged in splitting firewood, building a retaining wall, raking leaves and shoveling snow. According deference to Family Court’s credibility assessments, we conclude that the court properly determined that respondent failed to meet his burden of going forward and that petitioner sustained her burden of proving a willful violation (see *Matter of Columbia County Support Collection Unit v Demers, supra*at 1093; *Matter of Freedman v Horike,*26 AD3d 680, 681-682 [2006]).

*1177Respondent’s remaining argument has been considered and found to be lacking in merit *(see Matter of Powers v Powers, supra*at 68-69).

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

*

 Respondent’s petition seeking downward modification of the support order was dismissed and he has not appealed in that regard.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.9

                              EXHIBIT C - PRICING
                              -------------------

This exhibit sets forth a pricing agreement and supercedes Section 5.4(b) of the
`License and Manufacturing Agreement' dated February 20, 1997, between Sonic
Innovations, Inc. and Atmel Corporation, items 8 & 9 of Exhibit A, and Exhibit B
of that agreement.

     1.   Sonic Innovations shall provide a Guaranteed Minimum Revenue (GMR) to
          Atmel by purchasing product over the following timeframe.

                        CY2000       CY2001       CY2002       CY2003
                        ------       ------       ------       ------
               GMR      $900K        $1,800K      $4,500K      $4,500K

     2.   Product shall consist of any mix of Designs agreed to by both parties,
          and listed as `Products' below.

          Products:     [*]          [*]

     3.   Pricing for the Products over the subject timeframe shall be:

                        CY2000       CY2001       CY2002       CY2003
                        ------       ------       ------       ------
          [*]           [*]          [*]          [*]          [*]
          [*]           [*]          [*]          [*]          [*]

     4.   Sonic Innovations shall meet the General Minimum Revenue amounts in
          Item 1 on a cumulative basis. At the end of each calendar year, Atmel
          will examine the revenue shipped of all products and determine if the
          Guaranteed Minimum Revenue outlined in Item 1 has been met. If the
          Guaranteed Minimum Revenue has not been met, Sonic Innovations will
          have the option of accepting a one time charge or ordering additional
          product under the terms of this agreement to cover the shortfall.


/s/ Gregory N. Koskowich                   /s/ Tony Giraudo
------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
Gregory N. Koskowich                       Tony Giraudo
V.P. - Engineering                         V.P. and General Manager
Sonic Innovations Inc.                     Bicmos and Custom Asic Products
                                           Atmel Corporation


[*] - Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to these items.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Availability for Non-Exclusive, Exclusive, or Partially Exclusive 
Licensing of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Concerning Computer 
Controlled System for Laser Energy Delivery to the Retina

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the 
invention set forth in U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 
61/116,931 entitled ``Computer Controlled System for Laser Energy 
Delivery to the Retina,'' filed November 21, 2008. The United States 
Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, has rights in 
this invention.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 
Attn: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, 
Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth 
Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul 
Mele, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664, both 
at telefax (301) 619-5034.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-1634 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
EXHIBIT 31.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Ming S. Liu certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the small business issuer;  2. Based on my knowledge, this  Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this  Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this  Report;  4. The small business issues other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  Report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issues internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.   Dated: April 17, 2007 By:  /s/ Ming S. Liu Ming S. Liu   Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive 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  In connection with the Quarterly Report of PackItGreen Holdings, Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jonathan So, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 Company.    Date: September 25, 2009By:/s/ Shan HoShan Ho
President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive 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
   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Helix Wind, Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Executive 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:
  (a)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (b)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: August 11, 2010
/s/ Scott WeinbrandtScott Weinbrandt, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.      SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

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

|   | (b) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:   | /s/ Ronald                Pipoly                                                                                                                 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |            | Ronald                Pipoly  Chief                Financial Officer*(Principal                Financial and Accounting                Officer)* |

----
Case 2:11-cr-00221-JLL Document 16 Filed 07/13/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 32
Case 2:11-cr-00221-JLL Document 16 Filed 07/13/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 33