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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3197 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3197

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the City of 
  Eunice, Louisiana, certain Federal land in Louisiana, 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 ``Save the Liberty Theatre Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) City.--The term ``City'' means the City of Eunice, 
        Louisiana.
            (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Jean 
        Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, Proposed 
        Boundary Revision and Disposal'', numbered 467/168813, and 
        dated December 2020.
            (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.

SEC. 3. LAND CONVEYANCE.

    (a) Conveyance Authority.--The Secretary shall convey to the City, 
by quitclaim deed and without consideration, all right, title, and 
interest of the United States in and to the parcels of land described 
in subsection (b).
    (b) Description of Land.--The parcels of land referred to in 
subsection (a) are Lots 5 and 6, less the North 27 feet of Lot 5, Block 
22, of the Original Townsite of Eunice, generally depicted as 
``Proposed Disposal Area'' on the map.
    (c) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and available 
for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park 
Service.

SEC. 4. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS.

    Upon the conveyance to the City of the land described in section 
3(b), the boundary of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and 
Preserve shall be adjusted to exclude--
            (1) the conveyed land; and
            (2) Lots 7 and 8 of the Original Townsite of Eunice 
        generally depicted as ``Non-NPS in Current Boundary'' on the 
        map.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 16, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3197

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the City of 
  Eunice, Louisiana, certain Federal land in Louisiana, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
#### In Re: Ronald Sherrill WILKERSON, Petitioner.

No. 10-1749.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Nov. 24, 2010.

Ronald Sherrill Wilkerson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Sherrill Wilkerson filed a petition for an original writ of habeas corpus challenging the sentences he received in 1995 for his firearms convictions. This court ordinarily declines to entertain original habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006), and this case provides no reason to depart from the general rule. Moreover, we find that the interests of justice would not be served by transferring the case to the district court.*
      *See*28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2006); Fed. R. App. P. *78922(a). Accordingly, we deny Wilkerson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the petition. 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.

*DISMISSED.*

The district court has previously denied Wilkerson’s motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010). This court denied a certificate of ap-pealability and dismissed the appeal. *See United States v. Wilkerson,*No. 99-6799, 1999 WL 617862 (4th Cir. Aug. 11, 1999) (unpublished). Should Wilkerson seek to file a second or successive § 2255 motion in the district court, he must seek authorization from this court to do so. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2006).
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 Score One, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Hoi-ho Kiu, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Lai Ming Lau, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (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.



                                          /s/ Hoi-hu Kiu
                                          ----------------------------
                                          Hoi-ho Kiu
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          April 19, 2006



                                          /s/ Lai Ming Lau
                                          ---------------------------
                                          Lai Ming Lau
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          April 19, 2006
74 A.3d 122

#### Michelle FELDER, Respondent v. Mark A. GRAHAM, Petitioner.

No. 119 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 4, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of September, 2013, the Petition for Review is DENIED.
**EXHIBIT 10.25**

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-69077, No. 333-51091, No. 333-50895 and No. 333-17097 of DVI, Inc. on Form S-3 and in Registration Statements No.333-69083, No. 333-50837, No. 333-50695, No. 333-50693 and No. 333-50691 of DVI, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated August 10, 2001, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of DVI, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2001.

**/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP**

Princeton, New Jersey
EXHIBIT 99.1



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



The   undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant  to   18   U.S.C.
Section  1350,  as  adopted pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for  the  year  period  ended December  31,  2002  of  HemaCare
Corporation   (the   "Company")   fully   complies   with   the
requirements  of  Section  13(a) or  15(d)  of  the  Securities
Exchange  Act  of  1934, as amended, and that  the  information
contained  in  such  periodic report fairly  presents,  in  all
material  respects,  the  financial condition  and  results  of
operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented
in such report.

Very truly yours,


/s/ Judi Irving
----------------------
Judi Irving
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ David Fractor
-----------------------
David Fractor
Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  March 27, 2003


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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3152 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for purposes of the tax 

on private foundation excess business holdings to treat as outstanding 

any employee-owned stock purchased by a business enterprise pursuant 

to certain employee stock ownership retirement plans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2021 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for purposes 

of the tax on private foundation excess business holdings 

to treat as outstanding any employee-owned stock purchased by a business enterprise pursuant to certain employee stock ownership retirement plans. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3152 IH

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PURCHASES OF EMPLOYEE-OWNED 

2 STOCK DISREGARDED FOR PURPOSES OF 

3 FOUNDATION TAX ON EXCESS BUSINESS 

4 HOLDINGS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4943(c)(4)(A) of the In6 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following new clause: 

8 ‘‘(v) For purposes of clause (i), subpara9 graph (D), and paragraph (2), any voting stock 

10 which— 

11 ‘‘(I) is not readily tradable on an es12 tablished securities market, 

13 ‘‘(II) is purchased by the business en14 terprise on or after January 1, 2005, from 

15 an employee stock ownership plan (as de16 fined in section 4975(e)(7)) in which em17 ployees of such business enterprise partici18 pate, in connection with a distribution 

19 from such plan, and 

20 ‘‘(III) is held by the business enter21 prise as treasury stock, cancelled, or re22 tired, 

23 shall be treated as outstanding voting stock, but 

24 only to the extent so treating such stock would 

25 not result in permitted holdings exceeding 49 

26 percent (determined without regard to this 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3152 IH

1 clause). The preceding sentence shall not apply 

2 with respect to the purchase of stock from a 

3 plan during the 10-year period beginning on the 

4 date the plan is established.’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after 

8 the date of the enactment of this Act and to pur9 chases by a business enterprise of voting stock in 

10 taxable years beginning before, on, or after the date 

11 of the enactment of this Act. 

12 (2) SPECIAL RULE FOR GRANDFATHERED

13 FOUNDATIONS IN CASE OF DECREASE IN OWNER14 SHIP BY REASON OF PRE-ENACTMENT PUR15 CHASES.—Section 4943(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Internal 

16 Revenue Code of 1986 shall not apply with respect 

17 to any decrease in the percentage of holdings in a 

18 business enterprise by reason of the application of 

19 section 4943(c)(4)(A)(v) of such Code (as added by 

20 this section). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Ryan Densel RATTAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-2417.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 10, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 8, 2010.

Marc Seguinót, Seguinót & Associates, Dunn Loring, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director, Joseph D. Hardy, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Densel Rattan, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision finding him removable as an aggravated felon, denying his motion to terminate proceedings, and finding him ineligible for relief from removal. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the petition for review.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), we lack jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006), to review the final order of removal of an alien who is removable for having been convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including aggravated felonies. Because Rattan was found removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony, under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we have jurisdiction “to review factual determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping provision, such as whether [Rattan] [i]s an alien and whether []he has been convicted of an aggravated felony.” *Ramtulla v. Ashcroft,*301 F.3d 202, 203 (4th Cir.2002). Once we confirm these two factual determinations, then, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), we can only consider “constitutional claims or questions of law.” *See Mbea v. Gonzales,*482 F.3d 276, 278 n. 1 (4th Cir.2007).

Although Rattan concedes that he is a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, he denies the allegation that he is remova*842ble as an aggravated felon. Based on our review of the record, we find that Rattan’s convictions under Virginia law for petit larceny were for “theft offense[s] ... for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year” and were therefore aggravated felonies. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (2006). Accordingly, Rattan is indeed an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony, and § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of jurisdiction over the petition for review.*

We therefore grant the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DISMISSED.*

*

 We note that Rattan does not raise any color-able questions of law or constitutional issues that would fall within the exception set forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D).
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  Baynon  International
Corporation  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2007, as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  (the  "Report"),
Pasquale Catizone,  President of the Company,  certifies,  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 result of operations of
         the Company.


/s/ PASQUALE CATIZONE
-----------------------------------
Pasquale Catizone
President
(Principal Executive Officer)
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"cmoran","title":"FMC History - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"h2EMeJFcs5\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/about\/fmc-history\/\">FMC History<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/about\/fmc-history\/embed\/#?secret=h2EMeJFcs5\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMC History” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"h2EMeJFcs5\" 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":"Our History Since its founding on August 12, 1961, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has worked to ensure that neither the activities of liner shipping groups nor foreign government laws or regulations impose unfair costs on American exporters, or on American consumers of imported goods. The FMC was officially established in 1961 in the early […]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/fmc-small-logo.png"}
{"id":40,"count":24,"description":"","link":"\/tag\/ff29\/","name":"FF29","slug":"ff29","taxonomy":"post_tag","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags\/40"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/post_tag"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts?tags=40"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. PUERTO RICO FOOD PRODUCTS CORPORATION.

No. 4984.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

May 17, 1957.

Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and BIGGS (by special assignment) and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges, sitting.

PER CURIAM.

Upon motion of the National Labor Relations Board, petitioner, leave is granted to said Board to withdraw its petition for enforcement herein without prejudice.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.3


                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                OTC AMERICA, INC.


         Pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado Business Corporation Act,
the undersigned corporation adopts the following Articles of Amendment to its
Articles of Incorporation:

         FIRST: The name of the corporation is OTC America, Inc.

         SECOND: The following amendment to the Articles of Incorporation was
adopted on June 16, 2000, as prescribed by the Colorado Business Corporation
Act, by a vote of the shareholders. The number of shares voted for the amendment
was sufficient for approval.

         THIRD: ARTICLE I of the Articles of Incorporation is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety as follows:

                                    ARTICLE I

                                      NAME

         The name of the corporation shall be e.NVIZION COMMUNICATIONS GROUP
LTD.

         FOURTH: Upon acceptance and filing of these Articles of Amendment by
the Colorado Secretary of State, such amendment shall become effective.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officers of the Corporation have executed
these articles of amendment on this 16th day of June, 2000.


                                            OTC America, Inc.


                                            By:  /s/ Randy L. Phillips
                                               -------------------------------
                                                 Randy L. Phillips, President
#### Alan Clyde STEELE, Appellant, v. Douglas WEBER, Warden, SDSP, in his official and unofficial capacity; Dr. Eugene R. Reigier; Dr. Herbert Saloum; Dr. Jeff Luther; Dr. Michael Rost; Dr. Scott Lockwood, Avera McKennan Hospital; John Doe, known and unknown; Jesse Sondreal, Meade County State’s Attorney; Ward Dobler; Garland Dobler, Appellees.

No. 07-1257.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 15, 2008.

Filed: May 20, 2008.

*700Alan Clyde Steele, Blackhawk, SD, pro se.

James Ellis Moore, Woods & Fuller, Sioux Falls, SD, for Appellees.

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate Alan Clyde Steele appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action, in which he claimed that he was denied adequate medical care in prison.

Steele argued below, as relevant, that prison doctors and officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by refusing to continue prescribing him the high-dose narcotic pain medication he had been prescribed prior to his incarceration to treat his intractable-pain disorder from a crushed forearm. The medical records indicated, however, that the prison doctors believed Steele’s pre-incarceration levels of medication were harmful to him based on his medical history and needs, that they performed numerous tests to determine the proper treatment, and that they continuously tried different methods and medications to treat his pain. Thus, the record shows a mere disagreement with the course of treatment, *see Pietrafeso v. Lawrence County, S.D.,*452 F.3d 978, 983 (8th Cir.2006) (showing of deliberate indifference is greater than even gross negligence and requires more than mere disagreement with treatment decisions); *Vaughan v. Lacey,*49 F.3d 1344, 1346 (8th Cir.1995) (inmate who showed prison doctors disagreed with medications given prior to incarceration showed no more than disagreement with proper course of treatment), and does not support a conclusion that the prison’s treatment was unreasonable, *see Logan v. Clarke,*119 F.3d 647, 649-50 (8th Cir.1997) (prison doctors were not deliberately indifferent where they treated prisoner on numerous occasions and offered sensible medication and treatment).

Steele also argues the district court erred in staying discovery. We find no gross abuse of discretion, and we note Steele did not file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) explaining why he needed further discovery to resist summary judgment. *See Sheets v. Butera,*389 F.3d 772, 780 (8th Cir.2004) (standard of review) *Stanback v. Best Diversified Prods., Inc.,*180 F.3d 903, 911 (8th Cir.1999) (party opposing summary judgment who believes he has not had adequate opportunity for discovery must seek relief under Rule 56(f), which requires affidavit showing what specific facts further discovery might unveil).

Accordingly, we affirm, *see*8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny the appellate motions to supplement the record.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.