alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Bankruptcy Court 

Eastern District of Virginia 

In re Case No. 

 Debtor(s) Chapter 

ORDER ON REAFFIRMATION AGREEMENT

 The debtor(s) _________________________________________________ filed 

 (Name(s) of debtor(s)) 

___________________________________________________ on _____________________________ 

 (Date filed) 

made between the debtor(s) and the creditor ________________________________________________. 

 (Name of creditor) 

The court held the hearing required by 11 U.S.C. §524(d) or §524(m), on notice to the debtor(s) and the 

creditor on ______________________. 

 (Date) 

COURT ORDER: The court grants the debtor’s motion under 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(6)(A) 

and approves the reaffirmation agreement described above as not 

imposing an undue hardship on the debtor(s) or a dependent of the 

debtor(s) and as being in the best interest of the debtor(s). 

 The court grants the debtor’s motion under 11 U.S.C. §524(k)(8) and 

 approves the reaffirmation agreement described above. 

 The court reviewed the presumption of undue hardship and does not 

 disapprove the reaffirmation agreement under 11 U.S.C. §524(m). 

 The court disapproves the reaffirmation agreement under 11 U.S.C. 

 §524(m) 

 The court does not approve the reaffirmation agreement. 

 Sets the matter for a hearing on ____________________________. 

 BY THE COURT 

Date: _______________________ _____________________________________ 

 United States Bankruptcy Judge

 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER 

 ENTERED ON DOCKET: ____________________ 

[2400Cedva ver. 12/15] 

Scott A Sinclair 20-10140-BFK

Dolena J Sinclair

7

Scott A. Sinclair and Dolena J. Sinclair

a motion for approval of reaffirmation agreement March 19, 2020

Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC

May 12, 2020

✔

May 12 2020 /s/ Brian F. Kenney

May 12, 2020

Case 20-10140-BFK Doc 23 Filed 05/12/20 Entered 05/12/20 16:35:29 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology for Four

Corners Power Plant; Navajo Nation; Extension of Notification Deadline

Proposed Rule

EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0489  

(Previous Version incorrectly cited docket EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0498)

Corrected Docket Index as of June 26, 2013

Item Number Document Name

1 Pre‐Publication Signed version to Propose Extension of FCPP Notification Deadline

2 Docket Index (as of June 26, 2013)

3 2012_1231 Letter from APS to EPA

4 2013_0523 PDF from ACC website Retail Competition Docket Letter

5 2013_0619 Letter from APS to EPA

6 CORRECTED Pre‐Publication Signed version to Propose Extension of FCPP Notification Deadline

(only correction was to the docket number on pages 1 and 2)

7 CORRECTED Docket Index (as of June 26, 2013)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 543

 547

 540

 526

 517

 521

 542

 554

 573

 557

 554

 536

 545

 551

 548

 545

 547

 542

 545

 541

 550

 559

 534

 517

 545

 542

 547

 541

 533

 517

 519

 515

 503

 466

 474

 492

 513

 522

 534

 524

 513

 514

 501

 514

 515

 510

 495

 496

 503

 493

 511

 515

 503

 496

 497

 505

 501

 520

 492

 458

 528

 532

 524

 500

 501

 509

 527

 536

 549

 540

 536

 526

 528

 526

 532

 530

 512

 515

 524

 508

 528

 529

 515

 509

 517

 520

 522

 531

 511

 480

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2013 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 18, 2013

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 342

 345

 340

 325

 326

 331

 342

 347

 355

 350

 347

 341

 342

 341

 345

 344

 332

 334

 340

 330

 342

 343

 334

 331

 336

 337

 339

 344

 332

 313

TOTAL 15,645

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5071 

To provide access to Federal public benefits for aliens, without regard to 

the immigration status of that alien, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2019 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ (for herself, Ms. MENG, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Ms. 

TLAIB, Mr. GARCI ́A of Illinois, and Ms. LEE of California) introduced the 

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

A BILL 

To provide access to Federal public benefits for aliens, without regard to the immigration status of that alien, 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 ‘‘A Just Society: The 

5 Embrace Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FEDERAL PUBLIC BENEFIT ACCESSIBILITY FOR 

7 ALIENS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law (including title IV of the Personal ResponsiVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:26 Nov 21, 2019 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5071.IH H5071

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5071 IH

1 bility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 

2 (8 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)), an individual who is an alien 

3 (without regard to the immigration status of that alien) 

4 may not be denied any Federal public benefit solely on 

5 the basis of the individual’s immigration status. 

6 (b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the 

7 term ‘‘Federal public benefit’’ means— 

8 (1) any grant, contract, loan, professional li9 cense, or commercial license provided by an agency 

10 of the United States or by appropriated funds of the 

11 United States; and 

12 (2) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, 

13 public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, 

14 food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other 

15 similar benefit for which payments or assistance are 

16 provided to an individual, household, or family eligi17 bility unit by an agency of the United States or by 

18 appropriated funds of the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 20, 2010 

s1213 

Order 

 

December 20, 2010 

141354 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141354 

 COA: 295472 

Wayne CC: 03-010325-FH 

THOMAS J. WRIGHT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 2010 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
§ 75.532 Use of funds for religion prohibited. ( a ) No grantee may use its grant to pay for any of the following: ( 1 ) Religious worship, instruction, or proselytization.
( 2 ) Equipment or supplies to be used for any of the activities specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) [Reserved]
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
[45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 69 FR 31711, June 4, 2004]
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited

under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUN 10 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM INGRAHAM,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-8079

(D.C. No. 96-CV-151-B &

D.C. No. 91-CR-30 )

(Wyoming)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

William Ingraham was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Mr. Ingraham filed a petition for habeas relief under
-2-

28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction

because the federal drug statutes do not constitute a valid exercise of congressional

power under the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez,

514 U.S. 549 (1995). The district court dismissed the petition as frivolous. We have

held, post-Lopez, that the regulation of intrastate drug activity under the Comprehensive

Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), implicates

interstate commerce and is thus a valid exercise of Congress’ power under the

Commerce Clause. United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert.

denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); accord United States v. Tucker, 90 F.3d 1135, 1140 (6th

Cir. 1996) (collecting cases). 

We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Ingraham’s petition as

frivolous.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge
#### § 200.86 Use of MEP funds in schoolwide projects.

Funds available under part C of Title I of the ESEA may be used in a schoolwide program subject to the requirements of § 200.29(c)(1).

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6396)

[67 FR 71736, Dec. 2, 2002; 68 FR 19152, Apr. 18, 2003]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18726-18730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7970]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 11-08]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, DoD

ACTION: Notice

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a copy of a letter to the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 11-08 with 
attached transmittal, and policy justification.

    Dated: March 30, 2011.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

[[Page 18727]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP11.005


[[Page 18728]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP11.006


[[Page 18729]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP11.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP11.008


[[Page 18730]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05AP11.009

[FR Doc. 2011-7970 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5196 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5196

   To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit a 
   separate segregated fund of a corporation which is engaged in the 
  manufacture of opioids from making contributions or expenditures in 
 connection with elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 20, 2019

   Mr. Delgado (for himself and Mr. Rose of New York) introduced the 
     following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit a 
   separate segregated fund of a corporation which is engaged in the 
  manufacture of opioids from making contributions or expenditures in 
 connection with elections for Federal office, 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 Lives Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING CAMPAIGN SPENDING BY SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUNDS OF 
              CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OF OPIOIDS.

    (a) Prohibition.--Section 316(b) of the Federal Election Campaign 
Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30118(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``the establishment'' 
        and inserting ``subject to paragraph (8), the establishment''; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(8)(A) A separate segregated fund of a corporation may not 
solicit any contribution, and may not make any contribution or 
expenditure, at any time during which the corporation is engaged in the 
manufacture of opioids.
    ``(B) In this paragraph--
            ``(i) the term `manufacture' has the meaning given such 
        term in section 102(15) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
        U.S.C. 802(15)); and
            ``(ii) the term `opioid' has the meaning given such term in 
        section 102(18) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
        802(18)).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to contributions solicited, and contributions and 
expenditures made, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7783

ALBERT LEE EVANS, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-124) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Lee Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Albert Lee Evans, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order rejecting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Evans has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
### a couple more questions and the FMEA Monica Shimamura to: Kline, Kelley (GE Indust, ConsInd) 09/24/2008 10:31 AM
Follow Up: Normal Priority.

Hi Kelley, After the conference call, we internally discussed that it would be very helpful for us if we could get a sample or example of the FMEA before the next conference call. This way we could provide comments during the call. We also discussed several other items that we were hoping to receive more feed back from GE during our next call.

The issue of end of life - previously we had discussed that GE was considering a holistic approach 1. with their appliances. Therefore the idea was suggested that there could be a take back scheme through GE. Are you still considering this approach? What happens when GE appliances are resold to another individual (as used appliances)? If the 2. resold appliance does not have the original manual booklet or warranty card, can they still bring the equipment back to an authorized GE service center or dealer? How would a technician or disposal center differentiate from a new GE refrigerator to HFC 3. refrigerator? Would it be a label? \

Thank you for your time. Please contact me if any of the above is not clear. Cheers, Monica

Monica Shimamura U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Stratospheric Protection Division 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (6205J) Washington DC 20460 (tel) 202.343.9337 (fax) 202.343.2362

Address for hand delivery: 1310 L St. NW, 10th Floor (1027N) Washington DC 20005

.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o> .· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o> ,.· ́ ̄`·. ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o>  ̧.· ́ ̄`·..· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o> .· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o>.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o> .· ́ ̄`·.><((((o> ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o>.· ́ ̄`·.><((((o> ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧><((((o>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-5719

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOEL A. LUCAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-95-286)

Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark E. Hall, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. René

Josey, United States Attorney, Dean A. Eichelberger, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant noted this appeal outside the ten-day appeal period

established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) and failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period

provided by Rule 4(b). The time period established by Rule 4(b) is

mandatory and jurisdictional. United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d

191, 197 (4th Cir. 1991). The district court entered its judgment

on September 1, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on

September 12, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or

obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this court of

jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss the

appeal. 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
###### Editorial Note on Part 1245

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1245 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and 68 FR 10357, Mar. 5, 2003.

#### § 1245.14 Adjustment of status of certain health care workers.

An alien applying for adjustment of status to perform labor in a health care occupation as described in 8 CFR 1212.15(c) must present evidence at the time he or she applies for adjustment of status, and, if applicable, at the time of the interview on the application, that he or she has a valid certificate issued by the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools or the National Board of Certification in Occupational Therapy.

[63 FR 55012, Oct. 14, 1998]
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ForeFront Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Richard M. Gozia, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Randall J. Frapart, 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 to the best of our knowledge:

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 ForeFront Holdings, Inc.

Dated: November 29, 2007



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ Richard M. Gozia           
|Richard M. Gozia               
|Interim Chief Executive Officer
|                               
|/s/ Randall J. Frapart         
|Randall J. Frapart             
|Chief Financial Officer
#### § 245a.6 Treatment of denied application under part 245a, Subpart B.

If the district director finds that an eligible alien as defined at § 245a.10 has not established eligibility under section 1104 of the LIFE Act (part 245a, Subpart B), the district director shall consider whether the eligible alien has established eligibility for adjustment to temporary resident status under section 245A of the Act, as in effect before enactment of section 1104 of the LIFE Act (part 245a, Subpart A). In such an adjudication using this Subpart A, the district director will deem the “date of filing the application” to be the date the eligible alien establishes that he or she was “front-desked” or that, though he or she took concrete steps to apply, the front-desking policy was a substantial cause of his or her failure to apply. If the eligible alien has established eligibility for adjustment to temporary resident status, the LIFE Legalization application shall be deemed converted to an application for temporary residence under this Subpart A.

[67 FR 38350, June 4, 2002]