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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3436 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to exempt certain 

direct primary care arrangements from regulation as health insurance 

coverage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2021 

Mr. ROSENDALE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act 

to exempt certain direct primary care arrangements from 

regulation as health insurance coverage. 

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 ‘‘Direct Primary Care 

5 Accessibility Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3436 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTING CERTAIN DIRECT PRIMARY CARE AR2 RANGEMENTS FROM REGULATION AS 

3 HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE. 

4 Section 2791(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 300gg–91(b)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, except that 

7 such term shall not include a direct primary care ar8 rangement (as defined in paragraph (6))’’ before the 

9 period; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

11 paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(6) DIRECT PRIMARY CARE ARRANGEMENT.— 

13 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

14 subparagraph (B), the term ‘direct primary 

15 care arrangement’ means an arrangement 

16 under which an item or service is furnished by 

17 a health care provider to an individual in return 

18 for a direct fee. Such a fee may include— 

19 ‘‘(i) a monthly retainer; 

20 ‘‘(ii) a membership fee; 

21 ‘‘(iii) a subscription fee; or 

22 ‘‘(iv) a fee for a service, visit, or epi23 sode of care. 

24 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—The term ‘direct pri25 mary care arrangement’ shall not include any 

26 arrangement unless— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3436 IH

1 ‘‘(i) a copy of such arrangement is 

2 provided to the individual entering into 

3 such agreement (or the legal representative 

4 of such individual); and 

5 ‘‘(ii) such agreement— 

6 ‘‘(I) is in writing; 

7 ‘‘(II) describes the items and 

8 services to be provided in exchange for 

9 payment of a direct fee (as described 

10 in subparagraph (A)); 

11 ‘‘(III) specifies the direct fee re12 quired and any additional fees to be 

13 paid by a third party; 

14 ‘‘(IV) specifies the individual’s 

15 payment obligation; and 

16 ‘‘(V) prohibits the provider from 

17 charging or receiving additional com18 pensation for items and services in19 cluded in the direct fee.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3343 

To amend section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to ensure 

that efforts to engage in espionage or technology transfer are considered 

in visa issuance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2021 

Mrs. HARTZLER (for herself, Mr. GALLAGHER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. BISHOP of 

North Carolina, Mr. BUDD, Mr. BABIN, Mr. PERRY, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. 

GOHMERT, Mr. GOODEN of Texas, and Mr. POSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act to ensure that efforts to engage in espionage or 

technology transfer are considered in visa issuance, 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 ‘‘Protecting America 

5 From Spies Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3343 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDING INADMISSIBILITY ON SECURITY AND 

2 RELATED GROUNDS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 212(a)(3)(A) of the Im4 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(A)) 

5 is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any alien is inadmis7 sible if a consular officer or the Secretary of 

8 Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable 

9 ground to believe, that the alien— 

10 ‘‘(i) engages, has engaged, or will en11 gage in any activity— 

12 ‘‘(I) in violation of any law of the 

13 United States relating to espionage or 

14 sabotage; or 

15 ‘‘(II) that would violate any law 

16 of the United States relating to espio17 nage or sabotage if the activity oc18 curred in the United States; 

19 ‘‘(ii) engages, has engaged, or will en20 gage in any activity in violation or evasion 

21 of any law prohibiting the export from the 

22 United States of goods, technology, or sen23 sitive information; 

24 ‘‘(iii) seeks to enter the United States 

25 to engage solely, principally, or incidentally 

26 in any other unlawful activity; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3343 IH

1 ‘‘(iv) seeks to enter the United States 

2 to engage solely, principally, or incidentally 

3 in any activity a purpose of which is the 

4 opposition to, or the control or overthrow 

5 of, the Government of the United States by 

6 force, violence, or other unlawful means; or 

7 ‘‘(v) is the spouse or child of an alien 

8 who is inadmissible under this subpara9 graph, if the activity causing the alien to 

10 be found inadmissible occurred within the 

11 last 5 years.’’. 

12 (b) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—Section 212(d)(3)(A) of 

13 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

14 1182(d)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘(other than para15 graphs (3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), and 

16 clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E) of such sub17 section)’’ each place such phrase appears and inserting 

18 ‘‘(other than subparagraphs (A)(i)(I), (A)(ii), (A)(iii), 

19 (A)(iv), (C), (E)(i), and (E)(ii) of paragraph (3) of such 

20 subsection)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward CALLOWAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-4351.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 1, 2010.

Before MARTIN, GIBBONS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge.

In July 2000, Edward Calloway pled guilty to possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. *See*21 U.S.C. § 841. The sentencing court determined that Calloway was a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1. After a three-level reduction for accepting responsibility, the recommended range for Calloway’s sentence was 151 to 188 months. The court sentenced Calloway to 151 months’ imprisonment.

The Sentencing Commission thereafter retroactively amended the sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine. Calloway moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence. Section 3582(c)(2) says a defendant may seek a reduction if he was sentenced “based on a sentencing range” retroactively lowered by the Commission. The district court denied his motion, holding that Calloway was ineligible for a reduction because he was sentenced based on the career-offender range, which has not been lowered. We review that determination *de novo. See United States v. Johnson,*569 F.3d 619, 623 (6th Cir.2009).

On appeal, Calloway argues that the sentencing court must have based his sentence in part on the crack-possession range, because the career-offender range is advisory under *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Calloway also argues that he was not sentenced based on the career-offender range because he received a reduction for accepting responsibility.

Calloway concedes that we rejected these same arguments in *United States v. Perdue,*572 F.3d 288 (6th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1537, 176 L.Ed.2d 133 (2010). We are bound by that decision, and thus reject his arguments.

The district court’s order denying Calloway’s motion is affirmed.
Friday, September 25, 2015 Contact: John Arnold, Director 

For Immediate Release Office of Public Affairs 

Web site: www.fmcs.gov Phone: (202) 606-8100 

 

FMCS Statement on Negotiations 

Between Pantex/Consolidated Nuclear Security (CNS) 

And the Metal Trades Council in Amarillo, TX 

WASHINGTON, D.C. —The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) announced 

today that labor negotiations between Pantex/Consolidated Nuclear Security (CNS) and the 

Metal Trades Council in Amarillo, Texas have been temporarily recessed at the request of the 

federal mediator overseeing the talks to give the parties an opportunity to review new 

information and engage in internal discussions. 

“The parties met this past week and spent many hours in meaningful talks, focused on their 

mutual efforts to bridge their differences” said FMCS Deputy Director Scot Beckenbaugh. “This 

temporary recess is necessary in order to allow the parties to assess the new information 

provided and explore additional avenues for possible resolution. The parties will reconvene next 

week at a time and location to be determined.” 

Because of the sensitivity and the critical importance of the discussions, both the employer and 

the unions have agreed to a request by FMCS to refrain from commenting to the news media 

regarding the status and substance of the talks. In keeping with Agency policy and practice, the 

FMCS will also have no further comment regarding the status and substance of the talks. 

### 

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, created in 1947, is an independent U.S. government 

agency whose mission is to preserve and promote labor-management peace and cooperation. 

Headquartered in Washington, DC, with 10 district offices and more than 60 field offices, the agency 

provides mediation and conflict resolution services to industry, government agencies and communities. 

NEWS RELEASE

FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20427
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6462 

ROBERT ANDREW BARTLETT, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION;

THEODIS BECK; BOYD BENNETT; ROBY C. LEE; TONY

SANDERS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (CA-04-576-5-BO)

Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 4, 2005

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Andrew Bartlett, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Andrew Bartlett, Sr., appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Bartlett v. North Carolina Dep’t of Corr., No. CA-04-

576-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 2005). 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

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-2000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                             341
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,009
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,445
<PP&E>                                           3,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                     217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,177
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,692
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,930
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,177
<SALES>                                          5,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (102)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,382
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.23
 AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN HARLAND CLARKE HOLDINGS CORP.
AND PETER A. FERA, JR.
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 1.
    
    Section 2.1 is hereby modified by deleting the date of December 31, 2010 and
inserting in its place the date December 31, 2013.2.
    
    All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall otherwise
remain in place, except as expressly amended herein.
  HARLAND CLARKE HOLDINGS CORP.By:
    /s/ Charles DawsonName:
    Charles DawsonTitle:
    President & CEO/s/ Peter A. Fera, Jr.Peter A. Fera, Jr. Page 1of 1
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Contact Minerals Corp. - Exhibit 4.1







	NUMBER 	SHARES 


INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA ON APRIL 25,
2007 

CONTACT MINERALS
CORP. 

CAPITAL STOCK: 165,000,000 SHARES OF WHICH 150,000,000 SHARES
ARE COMMON STOCK WITH A PAR VALUE OF $0.001 EACH AND 
15,000,000 ARE
PREFERRED STOCK WITH A PAR VALUE OF $0.001 EACH 

     This Certifies that
_________________ is the registered holder of
__________ Common Shares of the Capital Stock of
Contact Minerals Corp. transferable
only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in
person or by Attorney upon surrender of this
Certificate properly endorsed.


     In Witness
Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this
Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized
officers and its Corporate Seal, if adopted, to be
hereunto affixed this _____ day of __________ ,
2007. 

 

	President
About UsD2022-11-03T09:33:06-04:00

## About Us

**FMCS: Mission-Driven to Build Partnerships, Resolve Conflict and Promote Successful Bargaining**

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, created in 1947, is an independent agency whose mission is to preserve and promote labor-management peace and cooperation. Headquartered in Washington, DC, with six Regions comprising of more than 60 Field and Home Offices, the agency provides mediation and conflict resolution services to industry, government agencies and communities.

- About Us
- Mission & Values
- Our History
- Agency Departments    - Office of the Director
  - Office of the General Counsel
  - Office of Procurement and Operational Support
  - Office of Finance
  - Office of Budget
  - Office of Human Resources
  - Office of Information Technology
  - Office of Field Operations (Regional)      - Office of Client Services        - Office of Client Services – Associated Units 
  - Office of Field Administration
  - Office of Field Operations (National)      - Office of National Projects
    - Office of Conflict Management & Prevention/International        - Office of International Affairs 
    - Center for Conflict Resolution Education 
  - Office of Policy and Strategy      - Office of Congressional and Public Affairs 
  - Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) 
- Locations    - National Headquarters
IB 

Union Calendar No. 352 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 302 

[Report No. 117–455] 

To impose limits on excepting competitive service positions from the 

competitive service, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2021 

Mr. CONNOLLY (for himself and Mr. FITZPATRICK) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

SEPTEMBER 2, 2022 

Additional sponsors: Ms. NORTON, Mr. BEYER, Mr. HOYER, Mr. BROWN of 

Maryland, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Ms. WEXTON, Mr. 

COSTA, Ms. SPEIER, Ms. PORTER, Mr. BACON, Mr. VAN DREW, Mr. 

PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. EVANS, Mrs. AXNE, and Mr. MICHAEL F. 

DOYLE of Pennsylvania 

SEPTEMBER 2, 2022 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on January 13, 2021] 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 302 RH

A BILL 

To impose limits on excepting competitive service positions 

from the competitive service, and for other purposes. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 302 RH

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 ‘‘Preventing a Patronage 

5 System Act of 2021’’ or the ‘‘PPSA Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON EXCEPTION OF COMPETITIVE 

7 SERVICE POSITIONS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—No position in the competitive serv9 ice (as defined under section 2102 of title 5, United States 

10 Code) may be excepted from the competitive service unless 

11 such position is placed— 

12 (1) in any of the schedules A through E as de13 scribed in section 6.2 of title 5, Code of Federal Regu14 lations, as in effect on September 30, 2020; and 

15 (2) under the terms and conditions under part 

16 6 of such title as in effect on such date. 

17 (b) SUBSEQUENT TRANSFERS.—No position in the ex18 cepted service (as defined under section 2103 of title 5, 

19 United States Code) may be placed in any schedule other 

20 than a schedule described in subsection (a)(1). 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 352 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 302 

[Report No. 117–455] 

A BILL 

To impose limits on excepting competitive service 

other purposes. positions from the competitive service, and for 

SEPTEMBER 2, 2022 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
73 A.3d 575.

#### Alvin MINOR, Appellant v. BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 20, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 20th day of August, 2013, the order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 10.5**

**SILICON GRAPHICS, INC.**

**FORM OF AGREEMENT**

This Agreement, dated as of September 15, 2006 (this “Agreement”), is entered into by and between the undersigned employee (the“Employee”) and Silicon Graphics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). 

WHEREAS, on May 8,2006, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York (Case Nos. 06-10977 (BRL) through 06-10990 (BRL)) (the “Chapter 11 Cases”); 

WHEREAS, the Company andthe Employee have entered into a change in control agreement, dated as of [                         ], 2006 (the“Change Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Employee, recognizing that the Company will rely on this Agreement in connectionwith the Debtors’ exit from the Chapter 11 Cases (the “Chapter 11 Exit”), agrees as follows: 

1. The Employee agreesthat the Chapter 11 Exit shall not constitute a Change in Control (as defined under the Change Agreement). 

2. This Agreement shall beinterpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 

3. This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to thebenefit of (i) the heirs, executors and legal representatives of the Employee upon the Employee’s death and (ii) any successor of the Company. Any such successor of the Company will be deemed substituted for the Company under theterms of this Agreement for purposes of enforcing the Company’s rights hereunder. 

4. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts,each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto hereby execute this Agreement as of the date first above written.

 
**EMPLOYEE**By: 
 
Name: **SILICON GRAPHICS, INC.**By: 
 
Name: Title: 
 

2
----

| Dated:      May 11, 2010 | /s/      Matthew Boyle                     |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                     | Matthew      Boyle                         |
|                     | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|                     |                                       |
|                     |                                       |
|                     |                                       |
| Dated:      May 11, 2010 | /s/      Paul N. Farquhar                  |
|                     | Paul      N. Farquhar                      |
|                     | Chief      Financial Officer               |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-31015

Summary Calendar

DANIEL WATTS,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

ROBERT C. TANNER, WARDEN, B. B. RAYBURN CORRECTIONAL 

CENTER, 

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:16-CV-12936

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following a jury trial, Daniel Watts, Louisiana prisoner # 437719, was 

convicted of attempted second-degree murder and sentenced to 50 years in 

prison. After his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition was dismissed as untimely, he filed 

a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his conviction. The district court 

construed this motion as an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition and 

 

* 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

August 23, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-31015 Document: 00514128342 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2017
No. 16-31015

2

transferred the matter to this court. The district court’s transfer order is an 

appealable collateral order over which this court has jurisdiction. See In re 

Bradford, 660 F.3d 226, 228-29 (5th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Fulton, 

780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015).

Watts argues that the district court erred by construing his § 2241 

petition as a successive § 2254 application. According to Watts, he was 

convicted of an illegal, nonresponsive verdict, and, as such, he asserts that he 

is not challenging his conviction under § 2254 because there is no valid 

conviction to challenge. 

As the record shows, Watts’s petition challenges the validity of the same

Louisiana conviction for attempted second-degree murder that was the subject 

of his first § 2254 petition, and this challenge could have been raised in that

petition. See Leal Garcia v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 214, 222 (5th Cir. 2009); In 

re Cain, 137 F.3d 234, 235 (5th Cir. 1998). Therefore, the district court 

properly construed the petition as a successive § 2254 petition, over which it 

lacked jurisdiction, and transferred it to this court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 

U.S. 651, 662 (1996); United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s transfer order. 

 Case: 16-31015 Document: 00514128342 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2017