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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2814 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2814

 To repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and provide 
 for the discoverability and admissibility of gun trace information in 
                           civil proceedings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 22, 2021

  Mr. Schiff (for himself, Mr. Auchincloss, Ms. Bass, Mr. Beyer, Mr. 
  Blumenauer, Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Brownley, Ms. Bush, Mrs. Demings, Mr. 
DeSaulnier, Mr. Deutch, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Larson 
 of Connecticut, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Lynch, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of 
  New York, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Neguse, Ms. Newman, Ms. Norton, Mr. 
 Raskin, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Strickland, Mr. Suozzi, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. 
 Titus, Mr. Torres of New York, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Brendan F. 
 Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Connolly, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Crow, 
and Mr. Evans) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and provide 
 for the discoverability and admissibility of gun trace information in 
                           civil proceedings.

    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 ``Equal Access to Justice for Victims 
of Gun Violence Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE PROTECTION OF LAWFUL 
              COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT.

    Sections 2 through 4 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms 
Act (15 U.S.C. 7901-7903) are repealed.

SEC. 3. DISCOVERABILITY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF GUN TRACE INFORMATION IN 
              CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.

    The contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by 
the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 
and Explosives shall not be immune from legal process, shall be subject 
to subpoena or other discovery, shall be admissible as evidence, and 
may be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, and testimony or 
other evidence may be permitted based on the data, on the same basis as 
other information, in a civil action in any State (including the 
District of Columbia) or Federal court or in an administrative 
proceeding.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit      32**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

|   |                                 |                                              |
|--------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   | By:                        | /s/ Brent              M.              Giles |
|   | Brent                M. Giles        |
|   | Chief              Executive Officer |

|   |                                 |                                                |
|--------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | By:                        | /s/ Marc              J.              Weishaar |
|   | Marc              J. Weishaar        |
|   | Chief              Financial Officer |

----
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 51443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24040]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-
Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): November 6, 
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 31, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class 
Package Service Contract 23 to Competitive Product List. Documents are 
available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-19, CP2018-41.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-24040 Filed 11-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
* 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 14, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-11086

Summary Calendar

 

MICHAEL LEE HASTEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GEORGE W. BUSH, JR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; LARRY COMBEST, Chairman of

the House Agriculture Committee,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CV-88-C

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

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Michael Lee Hastey appeals the dismissal of his complaint

pursuant to a FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack

of subject-matter jurisdiction. We AFFIRM.

 “[B]efore a federal court can consider the merits of a

legal claim, the person seeking to invoke jurisdiction of

the court must establish the requisite standing to sue.” 

Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 154-55 (1990). To establish
No. 03-11086

-2-

standing, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, that he has suffered

an “injury in fact” that is concrete and particularized and

actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. McClure v.

Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 2003). A plaintiff cannot

establish standing simply by claiming an interest in governmental

observance of the Constitution, he must set forth instead a

particular and concrete injury to a personal constitutional

right. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 482 (1982). 

 Hastey has failed to identify how the enactment of animalrights legislation has interfered with his constitutional rights. 

He thus has failed to meet his burden of establishing standing. 

See Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 482; see also Ramming v. United

States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (the party asserting

jurisdiction bears the burden of proof). The district court

did not err by granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

See Hebert v. United States, 53 F.3d 720, 722 (5th Cir. 1995)

(grant of a FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo). 

 Although he alleges judicial bias, Hastey has not identified

any ruling by the court, other than the grant of the motion to

dismiss, in support of his claim. Adverse judicial rulings

will support a claim of bias only if they reveal an opinion based

on an extrajudicial source or if they demonstrate such a high

degree of antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible. 
No. 03-11086

-3-

See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). 

Hastey has not shown that either situation applies here. 

Because we AFFIRM the dismissal of the complaint for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction, we do not address Hastey’s argument

that the animal-rights legislation at issue violates the

Constitution. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.1

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 LaBranche & Co Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George M.L. LaBranche, IV, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and to the best of my knowledge, that:



|Date: May 14, 2003 |  |  | /s/GEORGE M. L. LABRANCHE, IVName: George M. L. LaBranche, IV
Title: Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and President
|------------------ |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LaBranche & Co Inc. and will be retained by LaBranche &
Co Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #15326 and #15327; CALIFORNIA Disaster Number CA-00277]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of CALIFORNIA dated 09/26/2017.

*Incident:*                         Helena Fire.                    

*Incident Period:*                         08/30/2017 through 10/01/2017.                    

# DATES:

Issued on 10/10/2017.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         11/27/2017.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/26/2018.                    

# ADDRESSES:

 Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of an Administrative declaration for the State of CALIFORNIA, dated 09/26/2017, is hereby amended to establish the incident closing date as 10/01/2017.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Dated: October 10, 2017.

Linda E. McMahon,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2017-22876 Filed 10-20-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Table of Contents

**Exhibit 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING  FIRM**

We hereby consent to  the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statement on Form F-3 of  TAM S.A. (File No. 333-147020), TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A. (File No. 333-147020-01)  and TAM Capital Inc. (File No. 333-147020-02), of our report dated June 24,  2008, except for the effect of the restatement discussed in Note 2(s) to the  consolidated financial statements, and the matter described in the penultimate  paragraph of Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting,  dated September 1, 2009,  relating to the  financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial  reporting, which appears in the Form 20-F/A of TAM S.A., TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A.  and TAM Capital Inc., for the year ended December 31, 2007 filed with SEC on  September 1, 2009.

São Paulo, Brazil, September 1, 2009

PricewaterhouseCoopers  Auditores Independentes
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioner William P. Doyle Reports on U.S.-China Bilateral Maritime Consultation Meeting and Follow-Up","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"NICz5Cgw8m\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-william-p-doyle-reports-on-u-s-china-bilateral-maritime-consultation-meeting-and-follow-up\/\">Commissioner William P. Doyle Reports on U.S.-China Bilateral Maritime Consultation Meeting and Follow-Up<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-william-p-doyle-reports-on-u-s-china-bilateral-maritime-consultation-meeting-and-follow-up\/embed\/#?secret=NICz5Cgw8m\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner William P. Doyle Reports on U.S.-China Bilateral Maritime Consultation Meeting and Follow-Up” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"NICz5Cgw8m\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Richard M. Thomas v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-00558-CR

Trial court case number: 1411673

Trial court: 176th District Court of Harris County

On February 18, 2016, this Court issued an order, abating the appeal and remanding to 

the trial court for appointment of new counsel. On March 7, 2016, a supplemental clerk’s record 

was filed, containing the trial court’s appointment of Deborah D. Summers.

We reinstate the appeal on the active docket. Appellant’s brief is due 30 days from the 

date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually 

Date: March 15, 2016
Table of Contents

Exhibit 13.4 

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

In connection with the Annual Report of TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Líbano Miranda Barroso, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

     (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

Date: June 30, 2009 

By: /s/ Líbano Miranda BarrosoLíbano Miranda Barroso Chief Financial Officer 

128 

----
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 Greystone Logistics, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Warren F. Kruger, President and 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:


(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.





January 20,
      2009
            
            /s/ Warren
      F. KrugerWarren
      F. KrugerPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer




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





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part
of the Report.
_________________________________________ 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 9, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132943(42) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. _________________________________________ Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

IN RE GABRIELLA JEANNE VALENTE, Minor. 

BARBARA ELLEN VALENTE and ROBERT 

JOSEPH VALENTE, 

Petitioners-Appellees, 

v SC: 132943 

 COA: 272058

 Kent CC

 Family Division: 05-021576-AY 

ROBERT WESLEY ROETMAN,

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's February 2, 

2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

l0306 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 9, 2007 

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2856 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2856

To require the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security 
    to report on the use of surveillance technology, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2021

    Mr. Torres of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security 
    to report on the use of surveillance technology, 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 ``Oversight of Law Enforcement 
Surveillance Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. REPORTING ON SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.

    (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, a law enforcement 
agency of a major metropolitan area receiving any Federal funds from 
the Department of Homeland Security shall report the use of 
surveillance technology to:
            (1) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
            (2) The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland 
        Security.
            (3) The United States Congress.
    (b) Report by Inspector General.--Not later than one year after the 
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Inspector General 
of the Department of Homeland Security shall report to the Committee on 
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate on the use of 
surveillance technology and the impact the use of such technology has 
on civil liberties and privacy.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement 
        agency'' means a State, local, Indian tribal, or campus public 
        agency engaged in the prevention, detection, investigation, 
        prosecution, or adjudication of violations of criminal laws.
            (2) Major metropolitan area.--The term ``major metropolitan 
        area'' means an area including 250,000 residents or more.
            (3) Surveillance technology.--The term ``surveillance 
        technology'' means equipment, software, or system capable of, 
        or used or designed for, collecting, retaining, processing, or 
        sharing audio, video, location, thermal, biometric, or similar 
        information, that is operated by or at the direction of the 
        department.
                                 <all>
```