alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 12 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 13 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 14 of 15
Case 19-13731-BFK Doc 20 Filed 12/10/19 Entered 12/10/19 16:31:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 15 of 15
### **CHAPTER 5—SMUGGLING**

Sec.
1701.
Customs-enforcement area.
1702.
Repealed.
1703.
Seizure and forfeiture of vessels.
1704.
Refusal or revocation of registry, enrollment, license or number on evidence that vessel engaging in smuggling; appeal; immunity from liability.
1705.
Destruction of forfeited vessel or vehicle.
1706.
Importation in vessels under thirty tons and aircraft; licenses; labels as prima facie evidence of foreign origin of merchandise.
1706a.
Civil penalties for trading without required certificate of documentation.
1707, 1708. Repealed.
1709.
Definitions
1710.
Separability.
1711.
Citation of chapter.
Exhibit 32

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Mark Eagle and Janice Jones, Executive Committee
members of College Partnership, Inc. (the "Company"), and John J. Grace, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that:

     (1)  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
          April 30, 2004 (the "Periodic Report"), to which this Certification is
          attached as Exhibit 32, fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
          as amended; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the
          end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of
          operations of the Company.

Date:  June 22, 2004

By: /s/ Edward Doody                        By: /s/ John J. Grace
--------------------                        ---------------------
President                                   John J. Grace
                                            Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Periodic Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
Jarbid

ge Field Office, Idaho 

Jarbidge 

Draft Resource Management Plan

and 

Environmental Impact Statement

Volume 3: Maps, Appendices, Glossary, 

& Index 

August 2010 
 

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the 

health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and 

enjoyment of present and future generations. 

BLM/ID/PT-10/003+1610 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CONSIDERATIONS: Before including your 

address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying 

information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your 

comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so.
### §963. Detention of armed vessel

(a) During a war in which the United States is a neutral nation, the President, or any person authorized by him, may detain any armed vessel owned wholly or in part by citizens of the United States, or any vessel, domestic or foreign (other than one which has entered the ports of the United States as a public vessel), which is manifestly built for warlike purposes or has been converted or adapted from a private vessel to one suitable for warlike use, until the owner or master, or person having charge of such vessel, shall furnish proof satisfactory to the President, or to the person duly authorized by him, that the vessel will not be employed to cruise against or commit or attempt to commit hostilities upon the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with which the United States is at peace, and that the said vessel will not be sold or delivered to any belligerent nation, or to an agent, officer, or citizen of such nation, by them or any of them, within the jurisdiction of the United States, or upon the high seas.

(b) Whoever, in violation of this section takes, or attempts to take, or authorizes the taking of any such vessel, out of port or from the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

In addition, such vessel, her tackle, apparel, furniture, equipment, and her cargo shall be forfeited to the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 746; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§32, 36 (June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title V, §§2, 6, 40 Stat. 221, 222; Mar. 28, 1940, ch. 72, §5, 54 Stat. 79).

Section consolidates said sections of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

Words "within the United States" were substituted for "within the jurisdiction" etc., in view of the definition of United States in section 5 of this title.

Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.

The conspiracy provision of said section 36 was omitted as covered by section 371 of this title. See reviser's note under that section.

Changes in phraseology were also made.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000".

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Functions

For delegation to Secretary of Homeland Security of authority vested in President by this section, see section 1(l) of Ex. Ord. No. 10637, Sept. 16, 1955, 20 F.R. 7025, as amended, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 3, The President.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2647-2648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-793]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-801, A-428-801, A-475-801, A-588-804, A-412-801]


Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, and the United Kingdom: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: January 14, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yang Jin Chun, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    At the request of interested parties, the Department of Commerce 
(the Department) initiated administrative reviews of the antidumping 
duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom for the period May 1, 2009, 
through April 30, 2010. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part, 75 FR 37759 (June 30, 2010). The preliminary results of the 
reviews are currently due no later than January 31, 2011.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), requires the Department to complete the preliminary results 
within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order 
for which a review

[[Page 2648]]

is requested and the final results within 120 days after the date on 
which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable 
to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) 
of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the 
preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the 
anniversary month.
    We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary 
results of these reviews within the original time limit because we 
received requests from several respondents for extensions of time to 
respond to our supplemental questionnaires and because we have 
scheduled verifications for several respondents in these reviews which 
have not yet been completed. Therefore, we are extending the time 
period for issuing the preliminary results of these reviews by 45 days 
until March 17, 2011.
    This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).

    Dated: January 10, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-793 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond Division 

In re: Curtis Earl Strickland 

and Joan T. Strickland Case No.: 19-32013-KLP

Debtor(s) Chapter 13 

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO PLAN 

 Curtis Earl Strickland and Joan T. Strickland Debtors, responds to the objection of Vanderbilt 

Mortgage and Finance, Inc., as follows: 

1. The hearing on confirmation is set for 06/19/2019, 09:10 AM, Judge Phillips' Courtroom, 701 E. 

Broad St., Rm. 5100, Richmond, Virginia. 

2. An Objection to Confirmation of the Chapter 13 Plan Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. on 

6/17/2019. 

3. Objections to confirmation are governed by Rule 3015(f) which provides: 

Objection to Confirmation; Determination of Good Faith in the Absence of an Objection. An 

objection to confirmation of a plan shall be filed and served on the debtor, the trustee, and any other 

entity designated by the court, and shall be transmitted to the United States trustee, at least seven 

days before the date set for the hearing on confirmation, unless the court orders otherwise. An 

objection to confirmation is governed by Rule 9014. If no objection is timely filed, the court may 

determine that the plan has been proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law 

without receiving evidence on such issues. 

4. To be timely filed an objection to the plan would have to have been filed not later than 6/12/2019. 

 

5. The Debtors assert they are proceeding in good faith. 

6. Because the Objection was not timely filed the court should over-rule the objection and confirm the 

plan. 

WHEREFORE the Debtors’ Plan should be confirmed as proposed. 

Dated: June 17, 2019 

 Curtis Earl Strickland 

and Joan T. Strickland 

 

 /s/ Nathaniel Webb 

 By ___________________ 

 Nathaniel Webb 

Case 19-32013-KLP Doc 14 Filed 06/17/19 Entered 06/17/19 17:57:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Nathaniel Webb 

708-C Thimble Shoals Blvd. 

Newport News, VA 23606 

757-240-4300 

Certificate of Mailing 

 I hereby certify that the foregoing Pleading was forwarded electronically and/or mailed via U.S. Mail 

on June 17, 2019, to: 

Richard C. Maxwell, Esq. 

WOODS ROGERS PLC 

P.O. Box 14125 

Roanoke, VA 24038-4125 

Suzanne E. Wade, Trustee 

P. O. Box 1780 

Richmond, VA 23218-1780 

 /s/ Nathaniel Webb 

 ___________________ 

 Nathaniel Webb 

Case 19-32013-KLP Doc 14 Filed 06/17/19 Entered 06/17/19 17:57:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
#### § 600.22 Severability.

If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the subpart or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice will not be affected thereby.

[87 FR 65488, Oct. 28, 2022]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-21031 Conference Calendar

JUAN VALENZUELA FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LUTHER A. MASTERS; DR. MASTER; DR. VICTOR ZIMA; CAPTAIN JAMES; CHARLES K; SERGEANT WILLIAMS; DONALD G, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CV-1973

-------------------- April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Valenzuela Flores, Texas prisoner # 608260, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The appellant argues that his back problem was aggravated because he was required to work more than four hours per day and that the defendants did not grant his request for a four-hour work day restriction until after he threatened to file suit against them. He does not dispute that his current work restrictions include: a four-hourNo. 00-21031 -2- work day; no lifting over 25 pounds; no squatting; no walking on wet, uneven surfaces; no working around machines with moving parts; no exposure to loud noises; and no work requiring complex instructions. Even if the appellant’s allegations are taken as true, he has not alleged a constitutional violation as he does not allege that prison officials knowingly forced him to perform work assignments which were inconsistent with his work restrictions or that they knowingly imposed work restrictions that were beyond his physical capabilities. See Jackson v. Cain , 864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th Cir. 1989); Mendoza v. Lynaugh , 989 F.2d 191, 194 (5th Cir. 1993). Even if the defendants were negligent in establishing his work restrictions or making his job assignment, such negligence is not unconstitutional. See Jackson , 864 F.2d at 1246. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing his action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The appellant’s conclusional allegations that he was treated differently from nondisabled prisoners do not state an equal protection claim as he has not alleged any specific facts to show when or how he was treated differently from other nondisabled prisoners. See Mayabb v. Johnson , 168 F.3d 863, 870 (5th Cir.)(a violation of equal protection occurs only when the governmental action in question classifies or distinguishes between two or more relevant persons or groups, or when a classification impermissibly interferes with a fundamental right), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 969 (1999).
AFFIRMED.
#### Chamberlain Banking House, appellant, v. George C. Zutavern et al., appellees.

Filed February 9, 1900.

No. 9,143.

1. Homestead: Exemption. A homestead of less value than $3,000 is exempt from forced sale on execution issued on an ordinary judgment.

2. --: Widow: Head oe Family. A widow with whom resides her children and grandchildren, who are under her care and maintenance, is the “head of a family,” and is entitled to the benefits of the law exempting homesteads from sale on execution.

3. -: Levy oe Execution: Action oe Debtor: Duty oe Creditor. Where a debtor takes the necessary steps after the levying of an execution upon7his lands to have his homestead interest therein determined, it is the duty of the creditor to make application as provided by law for the appraisal of the premises, and his failure so to do will be sufficient ground for vacating the sale of the homestead.

Error from the district court of Johnson connty. Tried below before Stull, J.

*Affirmed.*

*M. B. O. True*and *Boscoe Pound,*for appellant.

W. *B. GomstocJc, contra.*

Norval, C. J.

This is an appeal from an order of. the district court refusing to confirm a sheriff’s sale of real estate made upon execution, and vacating such sale.

The objections interposed to the sale were:

1. That the property was exempt to the defendant Wood as a homestead.

2. That, after the levy of the execution and before the sale, said defendant served a written notice upon the sheriff holding the writ that she claimed the real estate as a homestead, and that the same was, therefore, exempt *624from sale on execution, and that the judgment creditor failed to have her homestead right determined.

As to whether the property was the homestead of the defendant, the evidence adduced on the hearing in the court below was conflicting. That introduced by the defendant tended to show that she is a widow, sixty-nine years old, a resident of the state; that she resided upon the land in question as a home, with her servants; and that, during a greater portion of the time, certain of her children and grandchildren resided with her and were under her care and maintenance, and that the land was of less value than $2,000. The evidence was sufficient to establish that the real estate was not subject to forced sale on execution. See *Dorrington v. Myers,*11 Nebr., 388. Moreover, the judgment creditor failed to have the homestead right of the defendant in the property determined. See *Quigley v.*McEvony, 41 Nebr., 73.

The sale was properly vacated, and the order appealed from is

Affirmed.

*Rehearing denied.*
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

31

DAY HIGH

 229

 265

 310

 292

 304

 230

 241

 249

 281

 304

 270

 273

 233

 374

 536

 702

 762

 610

 656

 612

 634

 511

 372

 297

 373

 516

 495

 628

 935

 1,103

 1,201

 170

 172

 171

 170

 173

 174

 175

 180

 181

 183

 187

 186

 182

 187

 191

 194

 200

 204

 200

 211

 204

 192

 184

 191

 188

 193

 194

 190

 215

 207

 225

 186

 195

 212

 201

 203

 187

 192

 202

 211

 212

 210

 209

 200

 212

 259

 276

 319

 331

 354

 350

 340

 259

 216

 223

 232

 239

 252

 279

 388

 496

 524

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 5, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 2,744

 2,738

 2,729

 2,693

 2,640

 2,545

 2,499

 2,485

 2,696

 2,727

 2,752

 2,780

 2,799

 2,832

 2,905

 2,986

 3,093

 3,223

 3,374

 3,537

 3,685

 3,742

 3,747

 3,758

 3,780

 3,810

 3,862

 3,929

 4,058

 4,278

 4,483

 196

 196

 195

 192

 189

 182

 179

 178

 193

 195

 197

 199

 200

 202

 208

 213

 221

 230

 241

 253

 263

 267

 268

 268

 270

 272

 276

 281

 290

 306

 320

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00309-CV

VICTOR FONSECA AND RIG 

CLEANERS, LLC

APPELLANTS

V.

PEGGY SUE BISHOP, AS

EXECUTRIX OF ESTATE OF 

CHARLES T. BLISH, IN THE RIGHT 

OF RIG CLEANERS, LLC, AND THE 

ESTATE OF CHARLES T. BLISH, 

INDIVIDUALLY

APPELLEE

----------

FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2013-PR01571-2-A

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellants Victor Fonseca and Rig Cleaners, LLC attempt to pursue a 

restricted appeal from the trial court’s default judgment in favor of Appellee 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Peggy Sue Bishop, Executrix of the Estate of Charles T. Blish, in the Right of Rig 

Cleaners, LLC, and the Estate of Charles T. Blish, Individually. The trial court’s 

default judgment was signed March 7, 2014. The notice of restricted appeal was 

therefore due within six months,2 that is, by September 8, 2014, or, if 

accompanied by a motion for extension of time, within six months and fifteen 

days,3 that is, by September 23, 2014. Appellants did not file their notice of 

appeal until September 25, 2014, outside the deadline.

Accordingly, on September 26, 2014, we notified Appellants of our concern 

that we might not have jurisdiction over the appeal and informed them that unless 

they or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with this court a response 

showing grounds for continuing the appeal, this appeal would be dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.4 In response, Appellants filed a late motion for extension of 

time on September 30, 2014. Appellee filed an objection and response to the 

motion, seeking dismissal of the appeal.

“[O]nce the period for granting a motion for extension of time . . . has 

passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.”5

 The 

 2

See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 26.1(c), 30.

3

See Tex. R. App. 4.1(a), 26.3, 30; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 

617 (Tex. 1997); King v. State, No. 05–03–00936–CV, 2003 WL 21710523, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Dallas July 24, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).

4

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.

5

Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617.
3

times for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in this court, and absent a 

timely filed notice of appeal or an extension request, we must dismiss the 

appeal.6 Because neither appellants’ motion for extension of time nor their notice 

of appeal was timely filed, we dismiss the motion, and we dismiss this appeal for 

want of jurisdiction.7

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 16, 2014

 6

See id. at 617; see also Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b), 26.3.

7

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5297 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5297

  To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for a full annuity 
            supplement for certain air traffic controllers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 4, 2019

    Ms. Brownley of California (for herself and Mr. Rodney Davis of 
  Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for a full annuity 
            supplement for certain air traffic controllers.

    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 ``Continuity for Operators with 
Necessary Training Required for ATC Contract Towers Act of 2019'' or 
the ``CONTRACT Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. ANNUITY SUPPLEMENT.

    Section 8421a(c) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``as an air traffic'' and inserting the 
        following: ``as an--
            ``(1) air traffic'';
            (2) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by striking the 
        period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) air traffic controller pursuant to a contract made 
        with the Secretary of Transportation under section 47124 of 
        title 49.''.
                                 <all>
```