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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 318 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 318

  To extend the authority for the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory 
                              Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2009

 Mr. Delahunt (for himself and Mr. Markey of Massachusetts) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the authority for the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory 
                              Commission.

    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 ``Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory 
Commission Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADVISORY COMMISSION.

    Section 8(a) of Public Law 87-126 (16 U.S.C. 459b-7(a)) is amended 
by striking ``2008.'' and inserting ``2019.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23154]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers


Availability of a Draft Integrated Feasibility Report 
(Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement), Aliso Creek 
Mainstem Ecosystem Restoration Study, Orange County, California

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The comment period for the Availability of a Draft Integrated 
Feasibility Report (Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement), 
Aliso Creek Mainstem Ecosystem Restoration Study, Orange County, CA 
published in the Federal Register on Friday, September 29, 2017 and 
required comments be submitted by November 13, 2017. The comment period 
has been extended to November 28, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Lamb, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, Los Angeles District, phone number (213) 452-3798.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-23154 Filed 10-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

JESSE KNIGHT,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

______________________

2022

- 1169

______________________

Petition for review of an arbitrator ’ s decision in No.

201211

- 02152 by Dennis A. Kist.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before L OURIE

, T ARANTO

, and H UGHES

, Circuit Judges

.

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

The Department of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and remand

to allow the arbitrator to reevaluate the determination concerning the standard of proof and the reasonablenes s of the choice of penalty in light of this court’s decisions in Rodriguez v. Department of Veterans Affairs , 8 F.4 th 1290 (Fed. Case: 22-1169 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 05/31/2022KNIGHT v. DVA 2

Cir. 2021), and Connor v. Department of Veterans Affairs

, 8 F.4 th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2021)

, which Jesse Knight had

raised as issue s in post

- arbitration briefing. Mr. Knight

, through counsel, states that remand is acceptable “ so long as there was no provision directing petitioner to pay the costs of the appeal i.e. attorney fees and taxable costs .”
ECF No. 26 at 2.

It is within th is court’s discretion to remand to allow

the arbitrator to reconsider his previous position. See SKF
USA Inc. v. United States , 254 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We agree that remand is proper here and could preserve party and judicial resources, and therefore we grant
the Department’s motion . We further determine that costs should be awarded to Mr. Knight

, see Fed. R. App. P. 39; Fed. Cir. R. 39, but he has not moved for attorney fees and

this orde r does not address such a potential claim.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The Department’s motion is granted. The case isremanded to the arbitrator for further proceedings consistent with the motion and this order.

(2) Costs to petitioner

.

M ay 31 , 2022
Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 31, 2022 Case: 22-1169 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 05/31/2022
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11** 
**- 6987** 

ABDIYYAH BEN ALKEBULANYAHH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CAPTAIN THIERRY NETTLES, Captain; GUARD JAMES SMITH, No 040635; WARDEN WAYNE MCCABE; LIEUTENANT K. ARENS ,
Defendants

– Appellees,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ,
Defendant

.

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

. Margaret B. Seymour , District Judge. ( 6:10

- cv
- 02976

- MBS )

Subm itted : November 15, 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Abdiyyah ben Alkebulanyahh , Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVID SON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Abdiyyah ben Alkebulanyahh appeals the district

court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Alkebulanyahh v. Nettles , No.

6:10

- cv
- 02976

- MB S (D.S.C. July 13, 2011). We deny
Alkebulanyahh ’s motions 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 decisio nal process.

AFFIRMED
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 inVentiv Health, Inc. (“the Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, R. Blane Walter, 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 and to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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




INVENTIV HEALTH, INC.Date: August 9, 2010
By:
/s/ R. Blane WalterName: R. Blane WalterTitle: Chief Executive Officer







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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3547 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 207
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3547

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 8, 2009

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                            November 4, 2009

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 936 South 250 East in Provo, Utah, as the ``Rex E. Lee Post Office 
                              Building''.

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

SECTION 1. REX E. LEE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 936 South 250 East in Provo, Utah, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Rex E. Lee Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Rex E. Lee 
Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 207

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3547

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 936 South 250 East in Provo, Utah, as the ``Rex E. Lee Post Office 
                              Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 4, 2009

                       Reported without amendment
```
/331 -»

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 01-13-00488-CR OFFENSE: 2 (Poss w/intent Deliver)

Bryan Keith Burrell v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Harris

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 232nd District Court

DATE: 08/21/2014 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 1320468

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Bryan Keith Burrell v. The State of

STYLE: Texas CCA#: 1331 'IH

APPFLLfiNT^S

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: '^I'l'^f

Petition

JUDGE: tfTL-. \M~-

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            Section 906 Certification
                                     by the
               Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

         Each of Gary Valinoti, Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas J.
Mazzarisi, Chief Financial Officer, of JAG Media Holdings, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

         (1) The Company's periodic report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
January 31, 2003 ("Form 10-QSB") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of the Company.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                     CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


/s/Gary Valinoti                            /s/ Thomas J. Mazzarisi
----------------                            -----------------------
Name: Gary Valinoti                         Name: Thomas J. Mazzarisi

Date: March 17, 2003                        Date: March 17, 2003
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                              Florsheim Group Inc.
                           Subsidiaries of the Company


The Florsheim Shoe Store Company - Northeast, a Delaware corporation

The Florsheim Shoe Store Company - West, a Delaware corporation

L.J. O'Neill Shoe Co., a Missouri corporation

Florsheim Occupational Footwear, Inc., a Missouri corporation

Florsheim Australia Limited, an Australian corporation

Florsheim Canada, Inc., a Canadian corporation

Florsheim Europe S.R.L., an Italian corporation

Florsheim Pacific Limited, a Hong Kong corporation

Florsheim S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation

Florsheim B.V., a Netherlands corporation

Florsheim France, SARL, a French corporation
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# 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):*                         October 18, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 13, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 370 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-9, CP2018-16.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-22584 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
{"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":"Chairman Cordero Participates in U.S. \u2013 Japan Bilateral Meeting","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wQU0A0k0oU\"><a href=\"\/chairman-cordero-participates-in-u-s-japan-bilateral-meeting\/\">Chairman Cordero Participates in U.S. \u2013 Japan Bilateral Meeting<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/chairman-cordero-participates-in-u-s-japan-bilateral-meeting\/embed\/#?secret=wQU0A0k0oU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Chairman Cordero Participates in U.S. \u2013 Japan Bilateral Meeting” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"wQU0A0k0oU\" 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"}
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 12

- 00 087

- CR IN RE Richard PADILLA Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 29, 2012
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On February 8, 2012, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his pro se mot ion for speedy trial and/or motion to dismiss. However, in order to be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to perform a non

- discretionary act; (2) was asked to perform the act; and (3) failed or

r efused to do so. In re Molina , 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). When a properly filed motion is pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is ministerial, and mandamus ma y issue to compel the trial judge to act. See Safety

- Kleen Corp. v. Garcia , 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). However, mandamus will not issue unless the record indicates

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007

- CR

- 4263 & 2007

- CR

- 4264 , styled State of Texas v. Richard Padilla , i n the 399 th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez

- Gardner presiding.04

- 12

- 00087

- CR

- 2

- that a properly filed motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable amount of time. See id. Relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a) (“Relator mus t file with the petition [ ] a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”); see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Te x. 1992). Here, relator does not indicate when his motion was filed nor does he provide this court with a file stamped copy of the motion or any other documents to show that a properly filed motion is pending before the trial court and has been brought t o the trial court’s attention. Based on the foregoing, we conclude relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(a). Additionall y, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. T EX
. R.
A PP
. P . 52. Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot.
PE R CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
FILED

May 29, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

SHERMAN A. HENDERSON, )

)

Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9612-CC-00477

)

 vs. ) LAKE COUNTY

)

BILLY COMPTON, WARDEN, ) No. 96-7428

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to dismiss the

above-captioned appeal. The petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

trial court claiming that his sentence should be recalculated due to the denial of certain

sentencing credits. It appears the petitioner was originally convicted of first degree

murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in January, 1980. The trial court denied the

petition. The petitioner timely filed notice of appeal, and both the record and

petitioner’s brief have already been filed with this Court. 

In its motion, the state argues that the trial court properly denied relief in

this case because it does not appear from the face of the judgment or record that the

petitioner’s conviction is void. See Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). 

The state further contends that the issue raised by the petitioner is not a proper

consideration for habeas corpus relief, but rather must be challenged under the Uniform

Administrative Procedures Act. We agree. See Brigham v. Lack, 755 S.W.2d 469, 471

(Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1988); State v. Warren, 740 S.W.2d

427, 428 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1987). 

Accordingly, finding no error of law mandating reversal, it is hereby

ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20,

Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
2

Enter, this the ___ day of May, 1997.

_____________________________

PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

_____________________________

JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

_____________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE