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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3241 

To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to provide vouchers for the 

purchase of educational books for infants and children participating 

in the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 

children under that Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 16, 2009 

Mrs. MALONEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to provide vouchers for the purchase of educational books for infants 

and children participating in the special supplemental 

nutrition program for women, infants, and children 

under that Act. 

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 ‘‘Access to Books for 

5 Children Act’’ or the ‘‘ABC Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds the following: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3241 IH

1 (1) Reading to a child plays a crucial role in 

2 the development of the child’s brain from the earliest 

3 years. 

4 (2) According to a 1995 study by the National 

5 Commission on Reading, reading aloud to a child is 

6 the single most important tool for developing literacy 

7 skills. 

8 (3) A child who is not introduced to books and 

9 early literacy practices is more than three times as 

10 likely to drop out of school as a child who is intro11 duced to books and early literacy practices. 

12 (4) The American Academy of Pediatrics rec13 ommends daily reading to a child beginning when 

14 the child is just 6 months old and recommends that 

15 pediatricians prescribe reading activities and other 

16 instruction to parents during well-child visits. 

17 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 

18 1966. 

19 Section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 

20 U.S.C. 1786) is amended by adding at the end the fol21 lowing: 

22 ‘‘(r) VOUCHERS FOR PURCHASE OF EDUCATIONAL

23 BOOKS FOR INFANTS AND CHILDREN.— 

24 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the pro25 gram under this section, the Secretary shall provide 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3241 IH

1 grants to local agencies for the purpose of providing 

2 vouchers to women participating in the program for 

3 the purchase of educational books for the infants 

4 and children of such women. 

5 ‘‘(2) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.—In pro6 viding vouchers pursuant to paragraph (1), a local 

7 agency shall comply with the following requirements: 

8 ‘‘(A) A woman may receive not more than 

9 1 voucher (irrespective of the number of infants 

10 or children of the woman). 

11 ‘‘(B) The amount of a voucher may not ex12 ceed $5. 

13 ‘‘(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

14 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Sec15 retary $11,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 

16 through 2013 to carry out this subsection, of which 

17 not more than $1,000,000 may be used for adminis18 trative costs. Amounts made available under this 

19 paragraph shall remain available until expended.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Robert M. McMurrey, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report is in full compliance 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 operation of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Robert M. McMurrey 
|Robert M. McMurrey     
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 31, 2009
#### KHALID IBRAHIM *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 31963)

Gruendel, Lavine and Espinosa, Js.

Argued October 21

officially released November 8, 2011

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 351 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 351

 To expand the boundary of the Minute Man National Historical Park in 
 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to include Barrett's Farm, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2009

 Ms. Tsongas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To expand the boundary of the Minute Man National Historical Park in 
 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to include Barrett's Farm, 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 ``Minute Man National Historical Park 
Boundary Revision Act''.

SEC. 2. MINUTE MAN NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK BOUNDARY REVISION.

    (a) In General.--The boundary of the Minute Man National Historical 
Park is modified to include the area as generally depicted on the map 
titled ``Minute Man National Historical Park Proposed Boundary'', 
numbered 406/81001, and dated July 2007. The map shall be on file and 
available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the National 
Park Service, Department of the Interior.
    (b) Acquisition of Lands.--The Secretary of the Interior may 
acquire land or interest in land with the area described in subsection 
(a), by purchase from willing sellers with donated or appropriated 
funds, by donation, or by exchange.
    (c) Administration of Lands.--Lands added to the park under this 
section shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior as part 
of the Minute Man National Historical Park in accordance with 
applicable laws and regulations.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

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 TiVo Inc. (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Cal Hoagland, Interim 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, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 9, 2008



/s/ CAL HOAGLANDCal HoaglandInterim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3562 

AN ACT 

To designate the federally occupied building located at 1220 

Echelon Parkway in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘James 

Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner Federal Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3562 EH

1 SECTION 1. BUILDING DESIGNATION. 

2 The Administrator of General Services shall ensure 

3 that the federally occupied building located at 1220 Ech4 elon Parkway in Jackson, Mississippi, is known and des5 ignated as the ‘‘James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and 

6 Michael Schwerner Federal Building’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 With respect to the period in which the building re9 ferred to in section 1 is federally occupied, any reference 

10 in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 

11 record of the United States to that building shall be 

12 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘James Chaney, Andrew 

13 Goodman, and Michael Schwerner Federal Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 24, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3562 

AN ACT 

To designate the federally occupied building located 

man, and Michael Schwerner Federal Building’’. sissippi, as the ‘‘James Chaney, Andrew Goodat 1220 Echelon Parkway in Jackson, Mis-
#### Tai TRUONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Martin HOSHINO, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-15117.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 21, 2011.

Tai Truong, Avenal, CA, pro se.

David Carrasco, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the Califor*687nia Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Tai Truong appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with his 2008 parole hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Truong’s action on the basis of mootness because, in light of an amendment to the relevant law before his November 26, 2008 hearing, “there [wa]s no longer a possibility that [he could] obtain relief for his claim.” *Foster v. Carson,*347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir.2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); *see also*Cal.Penal Code § 3041.5(b)(3) (effective November 5, 2008).

Truong’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Barbara Portis, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[987 NYS2d 519]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 27, 2012, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct.

For approximately six years, claimant worked as a teleservice representative for the Social Security Administration. She was found to be in possession of a taser while at work that she discharged in the ladies’ bathroom. Following an investigation, claimant was eventually terminated from her position. She was initially found eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. However, after a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she had engaged in disqualifying misconduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this decision and claimant now appeals.

We affirm. Conduct that is detrimental to an employer’s interest and contrary to an established policy has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Cheeseboro [Com*
      *1196
      *missioner of Labor],*84 AD3d 1635, 1636 [2011]; *Matter of Sealey [Commissioner of Labor],*81 AD3d 1022, 1022 [2011]). Here, it is undisputed that claimant possessed a dangerous instrument and fired it in the ladies’ bathroom in violation of the employer’s clear policy prohibiting employees from possessing firearms or dangerous weapons on the employer’s premises. Although claimant maintained that she found the device on her desk at work and discharged it accidentally while examining it in the ladies’ room, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Jenkins [Commissioner of Labor],*109 AD3d 1073 [2013]; *Matter of Warren [Capital Dist. Tr.*Sys.— *Commissioner of Labor],*67 AD3d 1291, 1292 [2009]). Given that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we find no reason to disturb it.

Peters, PJ., Stein, Garry, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed
November 12 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00901

- CV

IN RE THOMAS GU T I ERREZ , JR. , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 245th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 18031



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On Nove mber 7, 2014, relator Thomas Gu t i errez , Jr. filed a petition for writ

of m andamus in this C ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ; see also Tex. R.
App. P. 52. In the petition, relator claims the underlying contempt order is void
and requests that he be discharged from confinement

. Relator has not provided a sufficient record and, therefore, has not shown
that he is entitled a writ of habeas corpus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A ) , (D) ;2 id. 52.7(a)(1). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
We also deny relator’s motion for emergency relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices McCally, Brown, and Wise.
#### In re: DISCOVERY LABORATORIES SECURITIES LITIGATION. The Mizla Group (Joseph, Denise, Alan, Erin, Julia Mizla) and Claire Spooner, Appellants.

No. 07-2080.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued March 25, 2008.

Filed: April 29, 2008.

James R. Malone, Jr., Esq. [Argued], Chimicles *&*Tikellis, Haverford, PA, for Appellants The Mizla Group.

*155Carol A. Mager, Esq., Mager & Gold-stein, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant Claire Spooner.

Robert L. Hickok, Esq. [Argued], Christopher J. Huber, Esq., Gay P. Rainville, Esq., Pepper Hamilton, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellees.

Before: McKEE, RENDELL and TASHIMA *, Circuit Judges.

*

Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

OPINION OF THE COURT

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs, the Mizla Group and Clame Spooner, appeal the dismissal of their Second Amended Complaint (“the Complaint”) in a securities class action. In the Complaint, they alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78¡j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Act, 17 CFR § 240.10b-5, by defendants, Discovery Laboratories, Inc. (“Discovery”), Robert Capetola, President and Chief Executive Officer of Discovery, and Christopher Schaber, former Chief Operating Officer of Discovery. The District Court considered the claims in the Complaint in a lengthy opinion and ultimately dismissed each claim for failure to sufficiently plead materiality and/or scienter under the heightened pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of the majority of their claims, but have abandoned or waived others.1

We find the District Court’s opinion well-reasoned and do not find that any of the issues before us constitutes grounds for disturbing or varying from its analysis. Accordingly, we will affirm the dismissal of the complaint for the reasons set forth therein.

1

. In particular, we note that appellants appeal the dismissal of their allegations relating to statements made regarding the likelihood of approval by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency only on the basis of materiality. The District Court, however, dismissed those allegations based on insufficient pleading of scienter as well, and appellants do not challenge that determination on appeal. Thus, a ruling in their favor on the materiality issue would be unavailing.
#### Victor Charles FOURSTAR, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. David NESS; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 06-35516.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 2, 2008.

Mary L. Zemyan, Esq., Wolf Point, MT, Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr., United States Penitentiary, Coleman, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*662Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his malpractice complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, without leave to amend. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of leave to amend, *Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Fourstar’s complaint without leave to amend because his action is barred by a three-year statute of limitations, whether the complaint is construed as asserting a federal claim, *see*Mont.Code Ann. § 27-2-204; *Van Strum v. Lawn,*940 F.2d 406, 410 (9th Cir.1991) (state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims applies in both *Bivens*and section 1983 actions), or a state claim, *see*28 U.S.C. § 1332; *see also*Mont.Code Ann. § 27-2-206; *Flowers v. Carville,*310 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir.2002) (in a diversity case forum state law determines which state’s statute of limitations governs).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          19,420
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  386,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,090
<INVENTORY>                                    639,386
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,021,502
<PP&E>                                         125,375
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,426
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,146,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          584,797
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,750
<COMMON>                                        78,912
<OTHER-SE>                                     476,686
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,146,847
<SALES>                                        515,378
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               515,378
<CGS>                                          341,247
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  341,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               649,546
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,667
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (481,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (481,082)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (481,082)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.006)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.005)


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00274-CV

Jason Sackett, Appellant

v.

Jessica Marie Sackett, Appellee

FROM THE 395TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 18-3070-F395, THE HONORABLE RYAN D. LARSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was originally due on September 11, 2019. On October 11, 

2019, this Court sent a notice to appellant informing him that his brief was overdue and that a 

failure to file a satisfactory response by October 21, 2019, would result in the dismissal of this 

appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of 

time. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: December 19, 2019
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 7450

RODERICK SANFORD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 0:21

- cv - 02552

- RMG )

Submitted : June 22, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Roderick Lamar Sanford , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7450 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Roderick Sanford appeals the district co urt’s orders a ccepting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation s and dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Sanford’s civil action seeking relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671

- 80. Limiting our review to the issues raised in Sanford’s informal brief , we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ( “ The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief. ” )

. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s orders. Sanford v. United States , No. 0:21

- cv - 02552

- RMG ( D.S.C. Apr. 25, 2022 ; Dec. 2, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7450 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2