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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3486 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3486

   To direct the Secretary of Education to deem each month for which 
   certain Federal student loans are in deferment during a period of 
   active duty service as months counted toward public service loan 
                              forgiveness.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2021

 Mr. Courtney (for himself and Mr. Johnson of South Dakota) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                               and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of Education to deem each month for which 
   certain Federal student loans are in deferment during a period of 
   active duty service as months counted toward public service loan 
                              forgiveness.

    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 ``Recognizing Military Service in PSLF 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ACTIVE DUTY DEFERMENT PERIODS COUNTED TOWARD PUBLIC SERVICE 
              LOAN FORGIVENESS.

    Section 455(m) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1087e(m)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as 
        paragraphs (3) through (5), respectively;
            (2) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
        (A), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
        (3)''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
            ``(2) Active duty deferment periods.--Notwithstanding any 
        other provision of this subsection, the Secretary shall deem 
        each month for which a loan payment was in deferment under 
        subsection (f)(2) of this section or for which a loan payment 
        was in forbearance under section 685.205(a)(7) of title 34, 
        Code of Federal Regulations (or similar successor regulations), 
        for a borrower described in subsection (f)(2)(C) as if the 
        borrower of the loan had made a payment for the purpose of 
        public service loan forgiveness under this subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, SEC.906 CERTIFICATION

I, Andrew A. Campbell, certify that:

     (1) the Form 10-Q of Pactiv Corporation for the period ended September 30,
         2003, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of sec.13(a)
         or sec.15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Pactiv Corporation for the period then ended.

                                          /s/ ANDREW A. CAMPBELL
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Andrew A. Campbell
                                          Senior Vice President and Chief
                                          Financial Officer

November 14, 2003

     This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

**1331PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW**

**SUITE520N**

**WASHINGTON,DC 20004**

** **

 

 

April 9, 2014

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:��������������� 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 23, 2014

 

PLACE:��������������������������������� TheDepartment of Labor Auditorium, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue,NW, Washington, DC 20210 

 

 

STATUS:������������������������������� Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:�������������������� TheCommission will hear oral argument in the matter *Secretary of Labor v. McCoyElkhorn Coal Corporation and Jason Robinson*, Docket Nos. KENT 2008-260, etal.**(Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in findinghigh negligence, unwarrantable failure, a designation of �significant andsubstantial� and individual liability with regard to a violation for coalaccumulations.)

 

 

Any person attending this oral argument who requiresspecial accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to29 C.F.R. � 2706.150(a)(3) and � 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:��������������� Jean Ellen������� (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              168,675
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                        (169,675)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   168,675
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### EX PARTE W. G. COYLE & CO., PETITIONERS.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

No. —, Original.

Submitted April 4, 1910.

Decided April 11, 1910.

Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of mandamus to a Circuit Judge to remand a case removed from the state to the Federal court denied.

This was a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the Circuit Judge to remand a case which had been removed from the state court and which involved the validity of a sale of a vessel by a United States marshal under execution.

*Mr. Charles Louque*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Edwin T. Merrick*and *Mr. John D. Grace*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of mandamus denied.
#### Rodney Oneal BRAXTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-7558.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Rodney Oneal Braxton, Appellant Pro Se.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Oneal Braxton seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. *See 28*U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Braxton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Braxton’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
DC2832.pdf -- Converted by SEC Publisher 4.2, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing








	
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO

SUPPLY AGREEMENT







     This Amendment No. 2 to Supply Agreement (this “Amendment”) is effective as of October 12, 2007, by and between Hoku Materials, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“HOKU”), and
SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation (“SANYO”).


	
RECITALS







     Whereas, Hoku Scientific, Inc. (“Hoku Scientific”) and SANYO are parties to that certain Supply Agreement dated as of January 17, 2007, as amended pursuant to that certain Amendment
No. 1 to Supply Agreement dated as of May 18, 2007 (together, the “Supply Agreement”); and


     Whereas, Hoku Scientific, Inc., has assigned all of its right, title and interest in the Supply Agreement to HOKU, its wholly-owned subsidiary, pursuant to that certain Assignment and
Assumption Agreement dated as of September 5, 2007 by and between Hoku Scientific and HOKU; and


Whereas, HOKU and SANYO desire to amend the Supply Agreement as hereinafter set forth:


     Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, HOKU and SANYO agree as follows:


	
AGREEMENT







1. Definitions. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Supply Agreement.


2. Amendment of Section 9.4(b). Section 9.4(b) of the Supply Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:


(b) HOKU is unable to complete the Financing on or before December 31, 2007.


3. Integration.  Except for the amendments specifically set forth above, the terms of the Supply Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and
survive the execution and effectiveness of this Amendment. 


	
[Signature Page Follows]







	
Page 1 of 2







	
HOKU Initials & Date:







	
SANYO Initials & Date:
















In Witness Whereof, HOKU and SANYO have executed this Amendment No. 2 to Supply Agreement as of the date first set forth above.

	
“SANYO” 
		
 		
“HOKU” 
	
	
 
	
	
SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. 
		
 		
Hoku Materials, Inc. 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
By: 
		
 		
/s/ Tadao Shimada 
		
 		
By: 
		
 		
/s/ Dustin Shindo 
	
	
		
		


		
		
		
		


	
	
Name: 
		
 		
Tadao Shimada 
		
 		
Name: 
		
 		
Dustin Shindo 
	
	
Title: 
		
 		
Senior Vice President 
		
 		
Title: 
		
 		
Chief Executive Officer 
	




	
Page 2 of 2







	
HOKU Initials & Date: /s/ DS







	
SANYO Initials & Date: /s/ TS
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 MCF Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, D. Jonathan Merriman and Gregory S. Curhan, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



August 6, 2003



/s/ D. Jonathan MerrimanD. Jonathan Merriman Chairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Gregory S. CurhanGregory S. Curhan Chief Financial Officer




33
#### Yvonne May RICHARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-10694

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 29, 2010.

Yvonne May Richards, Coleman, FL, pro se.

Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Bertha R. Mitrani, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before BLACK, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Yvonne May Richards appeals *pro se*the denial of her motion to vacate. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Richards argues that her appellate attorney was ineffective for failing to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court and she is entitled to relief from her conviction for conspiracy to launder money, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), based on the decision of the Supreme Court in *United States v. Santos,*553 U.S. 507, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 170 L.Ed.2d 912 (2008). We affirm.

Both of Richards’s arguments are foreclosed by caselaw. Richards’s appellate attorney cannot be deemed to have acted ineffectively for failing to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, *Wainwright v. Torna,*455 U.S. 586, 587-88, 102 S.Ct. 1300, 1301, 71 L.Ed.2d 475 (1982), because there is no right under the Sixth Amendment to counsel to pursue a discretionary application for review in the Supreme Court, *Ross v. Moffitt,*417 U.S. 600, 616-18, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 2447, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974). The decision of the Supreme Court in *Santos*that “the gross receipts of an unlicensed gambling operation were not ‘proceeds’ under section 1956,” *United States v. Demarest,*570 F.3d 1232, 1242 (11th Cir.2009), does not invalidate Richards’s conviction for laundering money acquired from health care fraud. *See United States v. Jennings,*599 F.3d 1241, 1252 (11th Cir.2010); *Demarest,*570 F.3d at 1242. The district court did not err by denying Richards’s motion to vacate.

AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00484-CV

IN RE CAPITOL COUNTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 20, 2014

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED AS MOOT

Relator Capitol County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. filed this petition for writ of mandamus 

on July 8, 2014. Relator has now filed an unopposed motion seeking dismissal of the petition for 

writ of mandamus. According to relator’s motion, the parties have reached an agreement in the 

underlying cause which has rendered the issues raised in the mandamus petition moot. We, 

therefore, grant relator’s motion and dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013-CI-14402, styled Albertha Stiff v. Capitol County Mutual Fire 

Insurance Co., pending in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David A. Canales 

presiding.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3681 

To direct the Director of the United States Geological Survey to establish 

a program to map zones that are at greater risk of sinkhole formation, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 1, 2021 

Mr. SOTO (for himself and Mr. BILIRAKIS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Director of the United States Geological Survey 

to establish a program to map zones that are at greater 

risk of sinkhole formation, 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 ‘‘Sinkhole Mapping Act 

5 of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SINKHOLE HAZARD IDENTIFICATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the United States 

8 Geological Survey shall establish a program to— 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3681 IH

1 (1) study the short-term and long-term mecha2 nisms that cause sinkholes, including extreme storm 

3 events, prolonged droughts causing shifts in water 

4 management practices, aquifer depletion, and other 

5 major changes in water use; and 

6 (2) develop maps that depict zones that are at 

7 greater risk of sinkhole formation. 

8 (b) REVIEW OF MAPS.—Once during each 5-year pe9 riod, or more often as the Director of the United States 

10 Geological Survey determines is necessary, the Director 

11 shall assess the need to revise and update the maps devel12 oped under this section. 

13 (c) WEBSITE.—The Director of the United States 

14 Geological Survey shall establish and maintain a public 

15 website that displays the maps developed under this sec16 tion and other relevant information critical for use by com17 munity planners and emergency managers. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
October 4, 2007 8K Exhibit 10.1




RELEASE OF CLAIMS

I agree that the goodwill payment (as calculated in the letter to which this Exhibit A is attached) to be made by Maxim
Integrated Products, Inc. ("Maxim") is full and complete satisfaction for the expiration and termination of my vested stock
option to purchase shares of common stock of Maxim identified below (the "Option").  

By signing below, I irrevocably, unconditionally and completely release, acquit and forever discharge each of the Releasees (as
defined below) from any Claim (as defined below), and irrevocably, unconditionally and completely waive and relinquish each and every
Claim that I may have had in the past, may now have or may have in the future against any of the Releasees, relating to any written or
oral agreements or arrangements relating to the Option.  For this purpose, the term "Releasees" means: (i) Maxim, (ii) each
affiliate of Maxim, and (iii) the successors and past, present and future assigns, directors, officers, agents, attorneys and
representatives of the respective entities identified or otherwise referred to in the foregoing clauses (i) and (ii); and the term
"Claim" means all past, present and future disputes, claims, controversies, demands, rights, obligations, liabilities, actions
and causes of action of every kind and nature, including, without limitation, (x) any unknown, unsuspected or undisclosed claim,
and (y) any claim or right that may be asserted or exercised by me in my capacity as a stockholder, director, officer or employee of
Maxim or in any other capacity.
Applicable only for individuals residing in California

I hereby expressly waive the provisions of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code regarding the waiver of unknown
claims, which provides as follows:
"A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO
EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY
AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR."



Applicable only for individuals residing outside of the United States

I acknowledge that the payment is made by Maxim (and not by my employer) and that it is outside the scope of my
employment and does not constitute part of my compensation or salary for any purpose (including, but not limited to, calculation of any
severance pay, bonuses, pension benefits or similar payments).  I further acknowledge that I am responsible for any income tax
and social insurance contribution payments due with respect to the cash payment (regardless of any tax withholding obligation Maxim
or my employer may have with respect to the payment).  


AGREED:

	

__________________

Signature
	
 
	

__________________

Option Number
	
 

	

__________________

Name (Please print)
	
 
	

__________________

Date and Time