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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 242 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 13, 1999.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2465) making appropriations for military construction, family 
housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes. The first reading 
of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the 
bill, and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with 
clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, 
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose 
in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. 
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during 
further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded 
vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for 
electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic 
voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
SCWC-15-0000545

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I 

________________________________________________________________

ROBERT H. JOSLIN dba HAWAII PUBLIC ADJUSTERS, 

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

vs.

OTA CAMP-MAKIBAKA ASSOCIATION, INC., a Hawai‘i nonprofit 

corporation, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

and

TAIRA PROCTOR and MELINDA DOMAGSAC,

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees,

and

ALTERRA EXCESS & SURPLUS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Respondent/Interpleader-Appellee/Cross-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-15-0000545; CIVIL NO. 14-1-2086-10 (KKS))

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Robert 

H. Joslin dba Hawaii Public Adjusters’ application for writ of 

certiorari filed on June 19, 2019, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, July 26, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-15-0000545

26-JUL-2019

02:47 PM
Exhibit 34.2




Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (KPMG LLP)









Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm






The Board of Directors


Citibank, N.A.: 
 We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion of Compliance, that the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities serviced by Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation issued on or after January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(v)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the twelve months ended March 31, 2015. With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.
 
 Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.
 
 In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the twelve months ended March 31, 2015 is fairly stated, in all material respects.







/s/ KPMG LLP






Chicago, Illinois


May 29, 2015
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40019 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MOSES SMITH, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:94-CV-204

- - - - - - - - - - August 24, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Moses Smith, Jr., contends that the district court erred in denying his § 2255 motion without considering his objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendations and without conducting a de novo review. The district court issued an order denying Smith's § 2255 motion, stating that "proposed findings and recommendations willNo. 95-40019 -2- be considered since no objections have been received." Smith had filed a pleading entitled "Pro Se Facts to Vacate or Correct Sentence Which Creates Manifest Injustice" prior to the district court's denial of his motion. However, Smith's pleading did not refer to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Thus, the district court did not err in stating that no objections had been filed and in denying Smith's motion without conducting a de novo review of Smith's pleading. In his § 2255 motion, Smith contended that his prior convictions should not have been used to enhance his sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines because: (1) they were over fifteen years old; and (2) they were related due to consolidation for sentencing. Smith challenged the enhancement of his sentence on direct appeal. This court held "the record contains evidence of three other felony convictions, fully supporting the Armed Career Criminal enhancement imposed by the district court." "[I]ssues raised and disposed of in a previous appeal from an original judgment of conviction are not considered in § 2255 motion." United States v. Kalish , 780 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 476 U.S. 1118 (1986). To the extent that Smith is raising different challenges to the enhancement of his sentence, his claims are nonconstitutional issues that could have been raised on direct appeal. Such claims are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Capua , 656 F.2d 1033, 1037 (5th Cir. 1981).No. 95-40019 -3- This appeal presents no issue of arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The appeal is DISMISSED. See5th Cir. R. 42.2.
# C_2013249EN.01000302.xml

| 30.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/3

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2013/C 249/05

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 12.7.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 12.7.2013-31.12.2013 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Stock or group of stocks | POK/56-14 |
| Species | Saithe (Pollachius virens) |
| Zone | VI; EU and international waters of Vb, XII and XIV |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 18/TQ40 |

Date and time of closure

12.7.2013

Duration

12.7.2013-31.12.2013

Member State

Spain

Stock or group of stocks

POK/56-14

Species

Saithe (Pollachius virens)

(Pollachius virens)

Zone

VI; EU and international waters of Vb, XII and XIV

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

18/TQ40

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
### SUBCHAPTER VI—PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE

| Sec. | Art. | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 830. | 30. | Charges and specifications. |
| 830a. | 30a. | Proceedings conducted before referral. |
| 831. | 31. | Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited. |
| 832. | 32. | Preliminary hearing required before referral to general court-martial. |
| 833. | 33. | Disposition guidance. |
| 834. | 34. | Advice to convening authority before referral for trial. |
| 835. | 35. | Service of charges; commencement of trial. |

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2019—Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title V, §531(b)(2), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1359, substituted "Proceedings conducted before referral" for "Certain proceedings conducted before referral" in item 830a.

2017—Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, §1081(d)(19)(A), (C), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1601, amended Pub. L. 114–328, §5541(3). See 2016 Amendment note below.

2016—Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LXIII, §5541(3), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2965, as amended by Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, §1081(d)(19)(A), (C), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1601, added item 830a and substituted "Preliminary hearing required before referral to general court-martial" for "Preliminary hearing" in item 832, "Disposition guidance" for "Forwarding of charges" in item 833, "Advice to convening authority before referral for trial" for "Advice of staff judge advocate and reference for trial" in item 834, and "Service of charges; commencement of trial" for "Service of charges" in item 835.

2013—Pub. L. 113–66, div. A, title XVII, §1702(a)(2), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 955, substituted "Preliminary hearing" for "Investigation" in item 832.
# C_2013266EN.01000501.xml

| 17.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/5

---

Notice to importers

Imports of sugar from the Western Balkans into the European Union

2013/C 266/05

By a notice to importers published in the Official Journal C 152 of 26.6.2002, p. 14, the Commission informed EU traders presenting documentary evidence of origin with a view to securing preferential treatment for sugar of tariff headings CN 1701 and CN 1702 from the Western Balkans to take all necessary precautions, since the release of the goods in question for free circulation could give rise to a customs debt and lead to fraud against the EU’s financial interests. The notice was based on the rapid and significant increase in preferential imports of sugar from certain countries in the Western Balkans, while those countries had shown a deficit in sugar production. At the same time, exports of sugar from the EU to the Western Balkans had increased by roughly the same level. This development of trade appeared to be highly artificial and was seen as an indication pointing to the possibility of fraud.

Certain measures to remedy this situation have meanwhile been introduced.

The conditions for a proper functioning of preferential arrangements for sugar of tariff headings CN 1701 and CN 1702 imported from the Western Balkans into the European Union having thus been restored, the notice to importers published in the Official Journal C 152 of 26.6.2002, p. 14, is hereby withdrawn.

---
### §3156. Mission readiness exercises

The joint policy required by section 3151 of this title shall also provide for the incorporation of contractors and contract operations in mission readiness exercises for operations that will include contracting and contractor support.

(Added and amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1810(a), (b)(6), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4162, 4164.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The text of subsec. (e)(3) of section 2333 of this title, which was transferred to this section and amended by Pub. L. 116–283, §1810(b)(6), was based on Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title VIII, §849(a), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 245.

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283, §1810(b)(6), transferred subsec. (e)(3) of section 2333 of this title to this section, struck out par. (3) designation at beginning, and inserted "required by section 3151 of this title" after "The joint policy".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section and amendment by Pub. L. 116–283 effective Jan. 1, 2022, with additional provisions for delayed implementation and applicability of existing law, see section 1801(d) of Pub. L. 116–283, set out as an Effective Date of 2021 Amendment note preceding section 3001 of this title.
Opinion issued August 20, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00464-CV

———————————

TIMOTHY WILSON, SR., Appellant

V.

MATTHEWS LAWSON, PLLC AND JOHN F. NICHOLS, SR., A.K.A. 

NICHOLS LAW, PLLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Waller County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. C13-072

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal was stayed for bankruptcy based on appellant’s suggestion of 

bankruptcy filed on July 10, 2014. The appeal was reinstated on the active docket 

on May 21, 2024. We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
2

In the May 21, 2024 reinstatement order, the Court ordered the reporter’s 

record to be filed within 30 days, or if no reporter’s record was taken, the Court 

ordered appellant’s brief to be filed within 30 days of the Court’s receipt of notice 

from the court reporter that there was no reporter’s record. The court reporter Sheila 

A. May advised this Court that there was no record, to her knowledge, because notes 

are only retained for three years. Appellant filed no response concerning the 

reporter’s record and the Court issued an order on June 18, 2024, setting appellant’s 

brief due without a reporter’s record. On July 25, 2024, the Court advised appellant 

that, unless appellant filed a brief or motion for extension within 10 days, the appeal 

was subject to dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a). No brief or motion for 

extension was filed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3, 43.2(f). Any 

pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Hightower and Countiss.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 6118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2326]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Connecticut Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, that a planning meeting of the Connecticut 
State Advisory Committee will convene at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 16, 
2011, at the University of Connecticut, School of Law, Faculty Lounge, 
55 Elizabeth Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06105. The purpose of the 
meeting is to plan future activities.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by March 16, 2011. The 
address is Eastern Regional Office, 624 9th St., NW., Washington, DC 
20425. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or who desire 
additional information should contact the Eastern Regional Office at 
202-376-7533 or by e-mail to: ero@usccr.gov.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above 
e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations 
of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC on January 28, 2011.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2011-2326 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
#### § 170.203 How are Tribal transportation planning funds provided to Tribes?

Tribal transportation planning funds described in § 170.200(a)(1) are calculated pro rata to each Tribe's final percentage as determined under §§ 170.200 through 170.202. Upon request of a Tribal government and approval by the BIA Regional Office or FHWA, these funds are made available to the Tribes under applicable BIA and FHWA contracting procedures.
#### § 214.1 Definition.

The term “officer in charge” shall refer to the superintendent of the Osage Indian Agency and school or other representative of the Government who may, for the time, be in charge of the Osage Agency and school, or any person who may be detailed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to take charge of leasing or mining operations under the regulations in this part.
### §2610. Competitions for excellence: acceptance of monetary awards

(a) Acceptance Authorized.—The Secretary of Defense may accept a monetary award given to the Department of Defense by a nongovernmental entity as a result of the participation of the Department in a competition carried out to recognize excellence or innovation in providing services or administering programs.

(b) Disposition of Awards.—A monetary award accepted under subsection (a) shall be credited to one or more nonappropriated fund accounts supporting morale, welfare, and recreation activities for the command, installation, or other activity that is recognized for the award. Amounts so credited may be expended only for such activities.

(c) Incidental Expenses.—Subject to such limitations as may be provided in appropriation Acts, appropriations available to the Department of Defense may be used to pay incidental expenses incurred by the Department to participate in a competition described in subsection (a) or to accept a monetary award under this section.

(d) Regulations and Reporting.—(1) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations to determine the disposition of monetary awards accepted under this section and the payment of incidental expenses under subsection (c).

(2) At the end of each year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report for that year describing the disposition of monetary awards accepted under this section and the payment of incidental expenses under subsection (c).

(e) Termination.—The authority of the Secretary under this section shall expire on February 10, 1998.

(Added Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title III, §377(a), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 283; amended Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title X, §1074(a)(16), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2659.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 104–201 substituted "on February 10, 1998" for "two years after the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996".
#### EMIL D. ANGHEL *v.*COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Decided June 16, 2004

*Emil D. Anghel,*pro se, in support of the petition.

*Elizabeth A. O’Dea,*assistant attorney general, in opposition.

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 25079) is dismissed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11** 

**- 2255** 

HUI CHEN

,

Petitioner

,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : June 19, 2012 Decided: August 23, 2012

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New Jersey, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Derek C. Julius, Senior Litigation Counsel, Glen T. Jaeger, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this ci rcuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Hui Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration App eals (Board)

denying her motion to reopen . We have reviewed the

administrative record and Chen’s contentions, and conclude that

the Board did not abuse its disc retion in denying Chen’s motion

.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2012). We accordingly deny the

petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In

re: Chen , (B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2011). 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 DENIED