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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5037 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5037

   To amend subtitle A of title II of division A of the CARES Act to 
    provide a hardship waiver for certain overpayments of Pandemic 
                        Unemployment Assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 16, 2020

 Ms. Duckworth (for herself, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Durbin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend subtitle A of title II of division A of the CARES Act to 
    provide a hardship waiver for certain overpayments of Pandemic 
                        Unemployment Assistance.

    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 ``Relief for Working Families Act of 
2020''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN OVERPAYMENTS OF PANDEMIC 
              UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 2102(d) of division A of the CARES Act (15 
U.S.C. 9021(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Waiver authority.--In the case of individuals who 
        have received amounts of Pandemic Unemployment Assistance to 
        which they were not entitled, the State shall require such 
        individuals to repay such amounts to the State agency, except 
        that the State agency may waive such repayment if it determines 
        that--
                    ``(A) the payment of such Pandemic Unemployment 
                Assistance was without fault on the part of any such 
                individual; and
                    ``(B) such repayment would be contrary to equity 
                and good conscience.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of the CARES Act (Public Law 
116-136).
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NABI HOSSEN, AKA Zahingir Alam

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-70457

Agency No. A075-659-701

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2014 ** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Zahingir Alam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings

held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

NOV 26 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions

of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Alam’s motion to reopen

as untimely where the motion was filed over eleven years after his removal order

became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), and Alam was personally served

with notice of his removal hearing, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2); 8

U.S.C. § 1229(a); Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150, 1156 n. 4 (9th Cir.

2004) (“Current law does not require that the Notice to Appear . . . be in any

language other than English.”), and failed to show the due diligence required for

equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679

(9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from

filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in

discovering such circumstances). 

To the extent Alam contends his due process rights were violated by the IJ’s

application of an improper standard, failure to give sufficient weight to the alleged

fraud, and misstatement of the facts, the record does not support his claims. See

Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to

prevail on a due process claim). To the extent Alam contends his due process

2 12-70457
rights were violated by the IJ’s failure to address Alam’s notice contention, Alam

has failed to establish prejudice. Id. 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Alam’s challenge to the asylum officer’s

refusal to interview Alam because Alam did not raise that contention before the

agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks

jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Alam’s contention related to the

BIA’s decision in Matter of J-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 161 (BIA 2013). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 12-70457
Exhibit 32.1




                         CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of AccessTel, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify, to
such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 of the
Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information
contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                                  /s/ KEVIN MARION
Date:  August 23, 2004                       By:  _________________________
                                                  Kevin Marion
                                                  President and Chief
                                                    Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65981-65982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26342]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9902-42-OA; EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0124]

Good Neighbor Environmental Board; Notification of Public 
Advisory Committee Teleconference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Public Advisory Committee Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notice is hereby given that the Good Neighbor Environmental Board 
(GNEB) will hold a public teleconference on Friday, November 15, 2013. 
The meeting will take place from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern Standard 
Time. Due to the government shutdown resulting in administrative 
backlogs, EPA is announcing this teleconference with less than 15 
calendar days public notice. The meeting is open to the public. For 
further information regarding the teleconference and background 
materials, please contact Ann-Marie Gantner at the number listed below.

DATES: Friday, November 15, 2013. The meeting will take place from 12 
p.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: GNEB is a federal advisory committee chartered under 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463. GNEB provides 
advice and recommendations to the President and Congress on 
environmental and infrastructure issues along the U.S. border with 
Mexico.
    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this teleconference is to 
discuss the Good Neighbor Environmental Board's Sixteenth Report and 
preliminary advice letter. The report and advice letter will focus on 
ecological restoration in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
    General Information: The agenda and meeting materials will be 
available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OA-
2013-0124.

[[Page 65982]]

General information about GNEB can be found on its Web site at 
www.epa.gov/ofacmo/gneb.
    If you wish to make oral comments or submit written comments to the 
Board, please contact Ann-Marie Gantner at least five days prior to the 
meeting. Written comments should be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0124.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for 
individuals with disabilities, please contact Ann-Marie Gantner at 
(202) 564-4330 or email at gantner.ann-marie@epa.gov. To request 
accommodation of a disability, please contact Ann-Marie Gantner at 
least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible 
to process your request.

    Dated: October 23, 2013.
Ann-Marie Gantner,
Acting Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-26342 Filed 11-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                      5
       
<S>                                      <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                          DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                  3,442,601
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           1,686,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                             (30,000)
<INVENTORY>                                               443,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        5,974,356
<PP&E>                                                    863,285
<DEPRECIATION>                                          (165,496)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         10,351,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     330,432
<BONDS>                                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                  248,126
<OTHER-SE>                                              9,530,444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           10,351,202
<SALES>                                                 8,938,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        8,938,282
<CGS>                                                   3,241,328
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           3,241,328
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        3,157,232
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         2,539,722
<INCOME-TAX>                                              644,182
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     1,895,540
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                            1,895,540
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 .75
        

</TABLE>
#### § 548.7 Use of new animal drugs.

Edible tissues of fish with residues exceeding tolerance levels specified in 21 CFR part 556 or established in an import tolerance under 21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(6) are adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because they bear or contain a new animal drug that is unsafe within the meaning of section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RETCNICK FAUSTEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3395

[February 6, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Joseph G. Marx, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 502018CF011782A.

Retcnick Fausten, Jasper, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2010274EN.01000702.xml

| 9.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu v Victor Vinel Ijac

(Case C-336/10)

()

2010/C 274/11

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Craiova

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu

Applicants:

Defendant: Victor Vinel Ijac

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a tax with the characteristics of the pollution tax governed by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, which levies a pollution tax on the registration in Romania of imported second-hand motor vehicles already registered in other Member States of the European Union, while that tax is not levied on second-hand motor vehicles registered in Romania in the event of their re-sale and consequent re-registration, in that such a tax could amount to a domestic tax on goods from other Member States which is indirectly discriminatory when compared with the tax treatment of domestic goods?

---
§ 201.104 Disclosures for broiler grower ranking system payments. ( a ) *Poultry grower ranking system records.* If a live poultry dealer engaged in the production of broilers uses a poultry grower ranking system to calculate broiler grower payments, the live poultry dealer must produce records in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. The live poultry dealer must maintain these records for 5 years.
( b ) *Placement Disclosure.* Within 24 hours of flock delivery to a broiler grower's facility, the live poultry dealer must provide all the following information to the broiler grower regarding the placement: ( 1 ) The stocking density of the placement.
( 2 ) Names and all ratios of breeds of the poultry delivered.
( 3 ) If the live poultry dealer has determined the sex of the birds, all ratios of male and female poultry delivered.
( 4 ) The breeder facility identifier.
( 5 ) The breeder flock age.
( 6 ) Information regarding any known health impairments of the breeder flock or of the poultry delivered.
( 7 ) Adjustments, if any, that the live poultry dealer may make to the calculation of the grower's pay based on the inputs in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section.
( c ) *Poultry grower ranking system settlement documents.* In addition to the requirements of § 201.100 of this part, a live poultry dealer must provide disclosures to all broiler growers on the grouping or ranking sheets as described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. The disclosures need not show the names of other growers. ( 1 ) Live poultry dealers must disclose the housing specification for each broiler grower grouped or ranked during the specified period.
( 2 ) Live poultry dealers must disclose all the following information to each broiler grower participant ranked under a poultry grower ranking system: ( i ) The stocking density for each placement in the ranking.
( ii ) The names and all ratios of breeds of the poultry for each placement in the ranking.
( iii ) If the live poultry dealer has determined the sex of the birds, all ratios of male and female poultry for each placement in the ranking.
( iv ) All breeder facility identifiers for each placement in the ranking.
( v ) The breeder flock age(s) for each placement in the ranking.
( vi ) The number of feed disruptions each ranked broiler grower endured during the growout period where the grower was completely out of feed for 12 hours or more.
[88 FR 83294, Nov. 28, 2023]
# C_2012118EN.01002302.xml

| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2012 — Kingdom of the Netherlands and ING Groep v Commission

(Cases T-29/10 and T-33/10) (1)

1

(State aid - Financial sector - Aid designed to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Capital injection with repayment or share conversion options conferred on the aid recipient - Amendment to the repayment terms during the administrative procedure - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test - Necessary and proportionate relationship between the amount of aid and the extent of measures intended to ensure compatibility of the aid)

2012/C 118/38

Language of the case: Dutch and English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, Y. de Vries and M. de Ree, Agents, assisted by P. Glazener, lawyer) (Case T-29/10); and ING Groep NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented initially by: O. Brouwer, M. Knapen and J. Blockx, lawyers, and subsequently by O. Brouwer, J. Blockx and M. O’Regan, Solicitor) (Case T-33/10)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, L. Flynn and S. Noë, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicants in Case T-33/10: De Nederlandsche Bank NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented initially by: B. Nijs and G. van der Klis, subsequently by G. van der Klis, M. Petite and S. Verschuur and, lastly, by M. Petite and S. Verschuur, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicants in Case T-33/10:

Re:

Re:

Applications for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/608/EC of 18 November 2009 on State aid C 10/09 (ex N 138/09) implemented by the Netherlands for ING’s Illiquid Assets Back Facility and Restructuring Plan (OJ 2010 L 274, p. 139).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-29/10 and T-33/10 for the purposes of the present judgment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-29/10 and T-33/10 for the purposes of the present judgment.

| 2. | Annuls the first paragraph of Article 2 of Commission decision 2010/608/EC of 18 November 2009 on State aid C 10/09 (ex N 138/09) implemented by the Netherlands for ING’s Illiquid Assets Back-up Facility and Restructuring Plan, the second paragraph of Article 2 of that decision and Annex II to that decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the first paragraph of Article 2 of Commission decision 2010/608/EC of 18 November 2009 on State aid C 10/09 (ex N 138/09) implemented by the Netherlands for ING’s Illiquid Assets Back-up Facility and Restructuring Plan, the second paragraph of Article 2 of that decision and Annex II to that decision.

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MARCO MANUEL TORRES, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2804

)

JUDGE MICHAEL S. WILLIAMS, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 7, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for

Hillsborough County; Jack Day, Associate 

Judge.

Marco Manuel Torres, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and David H. McClain, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
### §180. Repealed. Feb. 28, 1933, ch. 131, §1, 47 Stat. 1349

Section, R.S. §340, related to statements of vessels registered.
# C_2011013EN.01002001.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 21 October 2010 — Partrederiet Sea Fighter v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-505/10)

()

2011/C 13/35

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Partrederiet Sea Fighter

Applicant:

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

| 1. | Is Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 (1) on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils to be interpreted as meaning that mineral oils supplied for use in an excavator which is affixed to a vessel but which, because it has its own separate motor and fuel tank, operates independently of the vessel’s propulsion motor, in circumstances such as those of the present case, are exempt from duty? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 (1) on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils to be interpreted as meaning that mineral oils supplied for use in an excavator which is affixed to a vessel but which, because it has its own separate motor and fuel tank, operates independently of the vessel’s propulsion motor, in circumstances such as those of the present case, are exempt from duty?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 18216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7448]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday April 13, 2012.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered: 
    Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the event that the times 
or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the 
change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted 
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-7448 Filed 3-23-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
### SUBCHAPTER III—TAX PROVISIONS
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2011

- NM

- 175

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)