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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3096 

To allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service weapons, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2021 

Mrs. DEMINGS (for herself and Mr. BACON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired 

service weapons, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Federal Law Enforce5 ment Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PURCHASE OF RETIRED HANDGUNS BY FEDERAL 

7 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the 

9 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of Gen10 eral Services shall establish a program under which a FedVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:44 Jun 10, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3096.IH H3096

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3096 IH

1 eral law enforcement officer may purchase a retired hand2 gun from the Federal agency that issued the handgun to 

3 such officer. 

4 (b) LIMITATIONS.—A Federal law enforcement offi5 cer may purchase a retired handgun under subsection (a) 

6 if— 

7 (1) the purchase is made during the 6-month 

8 period beginning on the date the handgun was so re9 tired; 

10 (2) with respect to such purchase, the officer 

11 has passed a background check within 30 days of 

12 purchase under the national instant criminal back13 ground check system established under the Brady 

14 Handgun Violence Prevention Act; and 

15 (3) with respect to such purchase, the officer is 

16 in good standing with the Federal agency that em17 ploys such officer. 

18 (c) COST.—A handgun purchased under this section 

19 shall be sold at the fair market value for such handgun 

20 taking into account the age and condition of the handgun. 

21 (d) SENSE OF CONGRESS ON USE OF FUNDS.—It is 

22 the sense of Congress that any amounts received by the 

23 Government from the sale of a handgun under this section 

24 should be transferred and used to fund evidence-based gun 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3096 IH

1 violence prevention or gun safety education and training 

2 programs. 

3 (e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

4 (1) the term ‘‘Federal law enforcement officer’’ 

5 has the meaning given that term in section 

6 115(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code; 

7 (2) the term ‘‘handgun’’ has the meaning given 

8 that term in section 921(a) of title 18, United 

9 States Code; and 

10 (3) the term ‘‘retired handgun’’ means any 

11 handgun that has been declared surplus by the ap12 plicable agency. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
----

Exhibit 99.12

Consent of Eric Strom 

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-Fof New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission, of references to my name in connection with mineral reserveand resource estimates for the Peak Mines and to the use of information derivedfrom the technical report entitled "Technical Report on Peak Gold Mines, NewSouth Wales, Australia," dated January 1, 2009, included in the AnnualInformation Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31,2008. 

Dated this 31st day of March, 2009. 

"Eric Strom"                                                              Name: Eric Strom Title: P.Eng and Mine Technical Services Superintendent for Peak Mines Ltd. 

----
ex_366304.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


This Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Second Amendment”) is entered into by and among, CLS Holdings USA, Inc., a Nevada corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”), and Jeffrey I. Binder (hereinafter referred to as “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, CLS Labs, Inc., a Nevada corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“CLS Labs”) and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement effective October 1, 2014, the initial term of which expired on September 30, 2019, and an addendum to Executive’s Employment Agreement dated April 28, 2015 (collectively, the “Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, effective October 1, 2019, CLS Labs, the Company, and the Executive entered into an amendment to the Agreement (the “First Amendment”, and collectively with the Agreement, the “Amended Agreement”) to provide that the Company would assume all obligations of CLS Labs under the Agreement. The First Amendment also extended the term of the Executive’s Agreement by three years instead of relying on the automatic one-year renewal provision in the Agreement and increased the Executive’s annual base salary to $200,000. Additionally, the First Amendment provided for certain change of control provisions, including a payment of up to three years base salary and bonuses up to a maximum of $1,000,000, if the Executive resigns or is terminated in connection with a change in control of the Company. In connection with the First Amendment, the parties also amended and restated that certain Confidentiality, Non-Compete and Property Rights Agreement entered into by and between RJF Labs, Inc. (now CLS Labs), and the Executive effective as of July 16, 2014; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to extend the term of the Amended Agreement to expire on April 30, 2024 instead of relying on the automatic one-year renewal provision in the Agreement.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive hereby amend the Agreement as follows:


 


1.    Term of Employment. The Amended Agreement shall be extended until April 30, 2024. Upon expiration of the term, the Agreement shall automatically renew for successive terms of one (1) year, unless, without limiting the application of Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Agreement, either party, at least sixty (60) days prior to such renewal, gives the other party written notice of intent not to renew.


 


2.    Ratification. Except as specifically amended hereby, all terms of the Amended Agreement, including Exhibit A thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.


 


 


 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


 


 



 




 




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on this 25th day of April, 2022, effective as of May 1, 2022.


 


CLS HOLDINGS USA, INC.


 


 


By: /s/ Andrew Glashow                       


Andrew Glashow, President and COO


 


 


EXECUTIVE


 


 


/s/ Jeffrey I. Binder                                  


Jeffrey I. Binder
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Bernard J. Jacob, President of Pruco Life
Insurance  Company (the  "Company"),  hereby  certify that the Company's  Annual
Report  on Form  10-K for the year  ended  December  31,  2004,  containing  the
financial  statements of Pruco Life Variable  Contract Real Property  Account (a
separate  account of Pruco Life Insurance  Company) and The Prudential  Variable
Contract Real  Property  Partnership  (the  "Report"),  fully  complies with the
requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of Pruco
Life  Variable  Contract  Real  Property  Account  and The  Prudential  Variable
Contract Real Property Partnership.

                                                Date: March 31, 2005

                                                /s/ Bernard J. Jacob
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name: Bernard J. Jacob
                                                Title: Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.
---

Exhibit 99.19

Consent of Christopher Moreton

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F
of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission, of references to my name in connection with mineral reserve
and resource estimates for the Cerro San Pedro Mine and to the use of
information derived from the technical report entitled Technical Report on the
Cerro San Pedro Mine, San Luis Potosi, Mexico, dated February 16, 2010 and
amended March 22, 2010, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc.
for the financial year ended December 31, 2009 and I consent to the
incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on
Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.

Dated this 26th day of March, 2010.

|/s/ Christopher Moreton                                                                 | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name: Christopher Moreton                                                               | 
|Title: Senior Consulting Geologist for Scott Wilson
      Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.

---
#### Doshia S. PADGETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-1881.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 19, 2013.

Decided: Nov. 21, 2013.

Doshia S. Padgett, Appellant Pro Se. Erica Marie Perkins, Assistant Regional Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Doshia S. Padgett appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice her action challenging the Commissioner’s decision to deny Padgett’s claim for supplemental security income under the Social Security Act and denying her motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Padgett v. Soc. Sec. Admin.,*No. 7:12-cv-00330-GEC (W.D.Va. May 2, 2013; May 23, 2013). 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.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason OWEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10075

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 19, 2010.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’S Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alex R. Tandy, Esq., Law Office of Alex R. Tandy, Hurst, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jason Owen appeals from the concurrent 87-month sentences imposed by the district court for his convictions of one count of manufacturing, and one count of distributing, counterfeit currency. He argues that the district court erred by upwardly departing from the guidelines range of 21-27 months of imprisonment.

Although we ordinarily review sentences for reasonableness, *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), because Owen did not object to *891the unreasonableness of his sentence in the district court, review is for plain error only. *See United States v. Peltier,*505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir.2007). Given Owen’s extensive criminal record, the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, by upwardly departing based upon its finding that Owen’s criminal history category substantially under-represented the seriousness of his criminal history or the likelihood that he would recidivate. *See*U.S.S.G. 4A1.3(a)(l); *United States v. Simkanin,*420 F.3d 397, 418 *&*n. 24 (5th Cir.2005) (affirming an upward departure based upon the defendant’s likelihood to recidivate). This court has previously upheld comparable, and even greater, departures than the one here at issue. *See United States v. Smith,*417 F.3d 483, 492-93 (affirming upward departure from 41 months to 120 months of imprisonment); *United States v. Rosogie,*21 F.3d 632, 633-34 (5th Cir.1994) (affirming upward departure from 30-37 month guidelines range to 150 months of imprisonment). We similarly conclude that the degree of departure was not unreasonable in this case.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT
      10.3





AMENDMENT
      #2


TO


PROMISSORY
      NOTE




AMENDMENT
      #2, dated as of September 30, 2005, between Michelle Rush (“ Borrower ”),
      and Medis
      Technologies Ltd., a Delaware corporation (“ Lender ”).




WHEREAS,
      Borrower has heretofore delivered to Lender a Promissory Note, dated as of
      April
      25, 2005 (the “ Note ”);
      and




WHEREAS,
      such Note was amended by the Borrower and Lender in an amendment dated as of
      May
      9, 2005, and




WHEREAS,
      Borrower and Lender desire to further amend the Note as hereinafter set
      forth.




NOW,
      THEREFORE, **** the
      parties agree as follows:




1. The
      Note
      is hereby amended to change the maturity date from September 30, 2005 to
      November 30, 2005.




2. Except
      as
      expressly amended hereby and in the amendment dated May 9, 2005, the Note shall
      remain in full force and effect.




IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, **** Borrower
      and Lender have executed this Amendment #2 as of the date hereinabove set
      forth.




MICHELLE
              RUSH, BorrowerBy:
            /s/ Michelle
              Rush




MEDIS
              TECHNOLOGIES LTD., LenderBy:
            /s/
              Howard Weingrow
#### Surinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-75866.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 19, 2008.*

Filed May 2, 2008.

Tsz-Hai Huang, Hardeep Singh Rai, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Gary L. Anderson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, James E. Grimes, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*686Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Surinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a final decision issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. We deny the petition for review.

DISCUSSION

To establish his eligibility for asylum, Singh was required to prove he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Lolong v. Gonzales,*484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). Withholding of removal required him to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be subjected to persecution if he returns to India. *See Kohli v. Gonzales,*473 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir.2007). For CAT relief, Singh had to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured with the acquiescence of the Indian government upon his return. *See Muradin v. Gonzales,*494 F.3d 1208, 1210-11 (9th Cir.2007).

Singh contends he met these burdens because he was arrested, beaten and tortured as a result of his religion and his political activities. The IJ found, however, that Singh was not credible. We agree. Singh’s contradictory evidence regarding where he lived, when he joined his political party, and what human rights organization he belonged to all go the heart of his claims and justify the denial of asylum. *See Singh, v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir.2006) (“An inconsistency goes to the heart of a claim if it concerns events central to petitioner’s version of why he was persecuted and fled.”).

Because Singh failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he also failed to meet the higher burden required for withholding of removal. *See Kumar v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 520, 525 (9th Cir.2006). His failure to establish his eligibility for asylum does not, however, preclude CAT relief. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that “the standards for the two bases of relief are distinct and should not be conflated”). Nonetheless, because his claim of torture is based on the same testimony and evidence the IJ determined not to be credible, his CAT claim was also properly rejected. *See id.*at 1157.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
87 A.3d 813

#### Richard E. BRITTAIN, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION, Appellee.

No. 105 MAP 2012.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 26, 2014.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 2014, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"cmoran","title":"FMC Establishes Ocean Carriers Audit Program - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3iCvAlUlR4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/articles\/fmc-establishes-ocean-carriers-audit-program\/\">FMC Establishes Ocean Carriers Audit Program<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/articles\/fmc-establishes-ocean-carriers-audit-program\/embed\/#?secret=3iCvAlUlR4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMC Establishes Ocean Carriers Audit Program” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"3iCvAlUlR4\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The Federal Maritime Commission has established a new audit program and dedicated audit team to assess carrier compliance with the Agency\u2019s rule on detention and demurrage as well as to provide additional information beneficial to the regular monitoring of the marketplace for ocean cargo services. The \u201cVessel-Operating Common Carrier Audit Program\u201d was established Monday at […]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 53527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24767]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Automation and Public Safety Common Solutions 
Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 24, 2017, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act'') Automation and Public Safety 
Common Solutions Consortium (``APSCS Consortium'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the 
venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties 
to the venture are: General Motors LLC, Warren, MI; Ford Motor Company, 
Dearborn, MI; Honda R&D Americas, Inc., Torrance, CA; Hyundai-Kia 
America Technical Center, Inc., Superior Township, MI; Mercedes-Benz 
Research & Development North America, Ann Arbor, MI; Nissan Technical 
Center North America, Farmington Hills, MI; Toyota Motor North America, 
Plano, TX; and Volvo Group North America, Costa Mesa, CA. The general 
area of APSCS Consortium's planned activity is collaboration to conduct 
multiple research projects limited to specific areas in which the 
participants believe common solutions to specifically defined technical 
goals will speed the development and ultimate consumer access to safe 
Automated Driving Systems-equipped (ADS-equipped) vehicles. APSCS 
Consortium's objectives are to gain further knowledge and understanding 
of ADS-equipped vehicle interactions with public safety through 
research into common operational use cases.

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-24767 Filed 11-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3190 

To prohibit rescinding the recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan 

Heights. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2021 

Mr. GALLAGHER (for himself, Ms. STEFANIK, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. WILSON

of South Carolina, Mrs. RODGERS of Washington, Mr. ROY, Mr. 

GARBARINO, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. 

STEUBE, and Mr. HICE of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit rescinding the recognition of Israel’s sovereignty 

over the Golan Heights. 

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 ‘‘Israel Sovereignty Re5 assurance Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3190 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON RESCINDING THE RECOGNITION 

2 OF ISRAEL’S SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE GOLAN 

3 HEIGHTS. 

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of 

5 the funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the 

6 Department of State for fiscal year 2022 may be used to 

7 prepare, propose, draft, review, or promulgate any regula8 tion, guidance, or executive order or to otherwise imple9 ment, administer, or enforce any policy that rescinds the 

10 recognition by the United States that the Golan Heights 

11 are a part of Israel. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS