alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
99–008 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–660 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE 

AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL (H.R. 4783) TO ACCELERATE THE INCOME TAX BENEFITS FOR CHARITABLE 

CASH CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE RELIEF OF VICTIMS 

OF THE EARTHQUAKE IN CHILE, AND TO EXTEND THE 

PERIOD FROM WHICH SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE 

RELIEF OF VICTIMS OF THE EARTHQUAKE IN HAITI 

MAY BE ACCELERATED 

NOVEMBER 29, 2010.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. PERLMUTTER, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 1736] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 1736, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of the Senate 

amendments to H.R. 4783, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. The 

resolution makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Natural Resources that the House concur in the Senate 

amendments to H.R. 4783. The resolution provides one hour of debate on the motion, with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled 

by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Natural Resources and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled 

by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Ways and Means. The resolution waives all points of order against 

consideration of the motion. Finally, the resolution provides that 

the Senate amendments shall be considered as read. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the motion includes a waiver of clause 10 of rule XXI (prohibiting considVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:06 Nov 30, 2010 Jkt 099008 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR660.XXX HR660

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

eration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and 

revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing 

the surplus), and a waiver of Section 303 of the Congressional 

Budget Act (prohibiting consideration of legislation, as reported, 

providing new budget authority, change in revenues, change in 

public debt, new entitlement authority, or new credit authority for 

a fiscal year until the budget resolution for that year has been 

agreed to). 

COMMITTEE VOTES

The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to 

report, together with the names of those voting for and against, are 

printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 501 

Date: November 29, 2010. 

Measure: Senate amendments to H.R. 4783. 

Motion by: Mr. Dreier. 

Summary of motion: To make in order an amendment by Rep. 

Hastings (WA), #1, which would limit the total amount awarded for 

attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs to no more than $50 million. 

Results: Defeated 2–6. 

Vote by Members: McGovern—Nay; Matsui—Nay; Perlmutter— 

Nay; Pingree—Nay; Polis—Nay; Dreier—Yea; Foxx—Yea; Slaughter—Nay. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
#### Edward Ferguson, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. New York Telephone Company, Appellant.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation filed.
§ 5.71 Neutral spirits and name of commodity. ( a ) In the case of distilled spirits (other than cordials, liqueurs, flavored neutral spirits, including flavored vodka, and distilled spirits specialty products) manufactured by blending or other processing, if neutral spirits were used in the production of the spirits, the percentage of neutral spirits so used and the name of the commodity from which the neutral spirits were distilled must appear on a label. The statement of percentage and the name of the commodity must be in substantially the following form: “____% neutral spirits distilled from____ (insert grain, cane products, fruit, or other commodity as appropriate)”; or “____ % neutral spirits (vodka) distilled from ____ (insert grain, cane products, fruit, or other commodity as appropriate)”; or “____ % (grain) (cane products), (fruit) neutral spirits”, or “____ % grain spirits.”
( b ) In the case of gin manufactured by a process of continuous distillation or in the case of neutral spirits, a label on the container must state the name of the commodity from which the gin or neutral spirits were distilled. The statement of the name of the commodity must appear in substantially the following form: “Distilled from grain” or “Distilled from cane products”.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Randall Steven EICHERT, Defendant — Appellant.

No. 05-50288.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 12, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 3, 2006.

Jason De Bretteville Criminal Division, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael Tanaka, Esq., FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, GOODWIN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Randall Steven Eichert appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant. Eichert entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of posses*152sion of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). He conditioned his guilty plea on the outcome of this appeal in which he argues that the search warrant lacked sufficient indicia of probable cause requiring suppression of the seized evidence. Eichert claims that the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant was not supported by probable cause because the affidavit only referred to the newsgroup listings and media file names observed on his computer, and did not contain any express reference to child pornography.

The United States Supreme Court requires that an issuing magistrate make only a fact-specific, practical, and common sense determination, taking into account all of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, whether there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime exists in a particular place. *See Illinois v. Gates,*462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). There is no requirement, therefore, that an affidavit present conclusive proof by direct evidence that the crime has been committed before a search warrant can issue. Furthermore, this court affords great deference to an issuing judge’s determination of probable cause.*See United States v. Hay,*231 F.3d 630, 634 n. 4 (9th Cir.2000).

In this case, the affidavit stated that Eichert’s computer screen displayed about 100 newsgroup listings, including newsgroups regarding “teens, preteen, sex, children and young girls.” Also observed on Eichert’s computer hard drives and storage media were files titled with girls’ names and terms such as “teens, too young, early teens, preteens,” and sex words. Based upon the information presented in the affidavit, the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed. *See Gates,*462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317. The district court’s denial of Eichert’s motion to suppress evidence found pursuant to the valid search warrant was proper.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. ESEQUIEL LOPEZ-B ELTR AN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10241

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-01495-NVW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ne il V. W ake , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s. Ese quie l Lope z -B e ltra

n a ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s his guilty-ple a c onvic tion a

nd 41-m onth se nte nc e for re e ntry of a re m ove d a l ie n, in viola

t ion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lope z -B e ltra n’ s c ounse l ha s file d a

brie f sta ting tha t the re are 

# FIL ED JUN 27 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c ounse l of re c ord. W e have provide d Lope z -B e ltra n the opportunity

to filea pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. Lope z -B e ltra

n ha s wa i ve d his right to a ppe a l his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e . Our indepe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a

rgua ble issue a s to the va lidity of the wa ive r. Se eUnite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a c c ordingly dism iss the a ppe a l. Se eid. at 988. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. DISM I SSE D.

1 3 - 1 0 2 4 1 2
**Exhibit21**

 

 

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF LONE STARTECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 

 

I.                    EnvironmentalHoldings, Inc.

 

A.                 Zinkanada,Inc.

B.                  Zinklahoma,Inc.

 

II.                  LoneStar Steel Company

 

A.                 LoneStar Logistics, Inc.

B.                  LoneStar Steel International, Inc.

C.                  LoneStar Steel Sales Company

D.                 Rotac,Inc.

E.                  T& N Lone Star Warehouse Company

F.                  Texas& Northern Railway Company

 

III.                LoneStar ST Holdings, Inc.

 

A.                 FintubeTechnologies, Inc.

 

1.                   FintubeCanada, Inc.

2.                   Aletasy Birlos Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.

 

a.                   Aletasy Birlos, S.A. de C.V.

 

IV.                BellvilleTube Company, L.P.

 

 

 

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 71

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 71 appear by T.D. ATF-414, 64 FR 49084, Sept. 10, 1999and T.D. ATF-463, 66 FR 42734, 42735, Aug. 15, 2001.

#### § 71.96 Disqualification.

An administrative law judge shall, at any time, withdraw from any proceeding if he deems himself disqualified; and upon the filing in good faith by the applicant or respondent, or by the attorney for the Government, of a timely and sufficient affidavit of facts showing personal bias or otherwise warranting the disqualification of any administrative law judge, the Administrator shall upon appeal as provided in § 71.115, if the administrative law judge fails to disqualify himself, determine the matter as a part of the record and decision in the proceeding. If he decides the administrative law judge should have declared himself disqualified, he will remand the record for hearing de novo before another administrative law judge. If the Administrator should decide against the disqualification of the administrative law judge, the proceeding will be reviewed on its merits.
USGSHomeContactUSGSSearchUSGS

Data Series 673

----

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |            U.S. Geological Survey                                                URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/673/html/acronyms.html            Page Contact Information: GS Pubs Web Contact                        Page Last Modified: Monday, March 05, 2012, 11:19:48 AM
### SUBCHAPTER XIV—GENERAL PROVISIONS
**Michigan Supreme Court** 

**Lansing, Michigan**

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

August 5, 2014 

# Order

August 5, 2014

149166 ( 68 )

ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

,

v

G & K MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., d/b/a

OMNI CONTINUING CARE, and CIENA

HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendant s

- Appell ants

. SC: 149166

COA: 308200

Wayne CC: 09

- 023611

- CD

________________________________________ _ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants

- appellants for this Court to

accept their late reply to plaintiff

- appellee’s answer is GRANTED. The reply submitted

on July 22, 2014, is accepted for filing.
### D.R.H., 120 Nev. 422, 428-33, 92 P.3d 1230, 1234-37 (2004). Additionally,

if a child is placed outside of the home for 14 of any 20 consecutive months, it must be presumed that the parent has demonstrated only token efforts and that termination is in the child's best interest. NRS 128.109(1)(a) and (2). The parent's failure to comply substantially with a case plan for reunification within six months is evidence of the failure of parental adjustment. NRS 128.109(1)(b). Once established, these presumptions may be rebutted by the parent. In re Parental Rights as to J.L.N., 118 Nev. 621, 625-26, 55 P.3d 955, 958 (2002). This court will uphold the district court's termination order if it is supported by substantial evidence. In re 

### D.R.H., 120 Nev. at 428, 92 P.3d at 1234.

In terminating appellant's parental rights in this case, the district court found that the presumptions under NRS 128.109 applied and were not overcome by appellant. The court further found that termination was in the children's best interests and that parental fault was established based on appellant's parental unfitness, failure to make parental adjustments, demonstration of only token efforts, and a risk of serious injury to the children if returned to appellant. In particular, appellant failed to achieve the objective of his case plan and address his substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence issues. The court further found that the children were bonded with their current caregivers and that termination would promote the children's stability and security. Having reviewed the appellate record, we conclude that the statutory

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2requirements for termination were met and that the district court's

decision is supported by the record. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1

Hardesty 

# po,
Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Steven E. Jones, District Judge, Family Court Division Carmeno S. Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Eighth District Court Clerk

1 In light of this order, we deny appellant's proper person motion for a stay, motion for judgment and order, and motion for review and reconsideration of order. Also, we have considered appellant's proper person transcript request, and we conclude that the preparation of transcripts is not necessary for our review of this appeal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No . DA 20 - 040 5 IN THE MATTER OF: J.J ., A Youth in Need of Care. **ORDER** Upon consideration of the State’s Unopposed M otion to Supplement the Record on Appeal, submitted by the Appell ee , and good ca use appearing therefor , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the record on appeal shall be supple me nted with the fo llowing Thirteenth Judi ci alDistrict Court rec ords : In the Matter of J.J ., Cause No. DN 1 5 - 0 03 ; and In the M atter of J.J

., Cause No. DN 16 - 0 21 . IT IS FURTH ER O RDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve all parties of r ecord and the Clerk of Di stric t Court, Yellowstone County , with this Order .

KFS
Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 22 2020

10/22/2020
Case Number: DA 20-0405
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS UNAUDITED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE SEPTMEBER 30, 1996 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         1036404
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   277048
<ALLOWANCES>                                     67280
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1394968
<PP&E>                                         7050044
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5128404
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1051781
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (138649)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5128404
<SALES>                                        1686383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1690254
<CGS>                                          1690429
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1760687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               70258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (70433)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (70433)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.51)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation of our amended audit report dated January 4,2008 included in the amended Form 10-K of Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.and its subsidiaries for the year ended October 31, 2007.

 

 
|   | **MSPC**                                                     |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Certified  Public Accountants and Advisors,                  |
|   | A  Professional Corporation                                  |
|   |                                                         |
|   | (Formerly  Moore Stephen, P.C. Certified Public Accountants) |
|        |                                                              |  |

 

Cranford,New Jersey

January 8,2009

 

----
David Kissi, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Milton Morris et al., 

Defendants. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

SEP 162009 

C'~~k, u.s. District and 

uankruptcy Courts 

Og 1756 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed 

informa pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. 

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth 

generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available 

only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least 

plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to 

plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues two defendants also residing or based in 

the District of Columbia. The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis 

for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship. Accordingly, the 

complaint will be dismissed. I A separate Order accompanies th' orandum Opinion. 

Date: September ~ 

I Presumably, plaintiff may seek redress in the Superior Court of the District of 

Columbia.
EXHIBIT
32.1


CERTIFICATION
OF CO-PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





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 Noble Consolidated Industries Corp (the “Company”), does hereby
certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the
“Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:  November
      24, 2009
            /s/
      Thomas E. Barton ChownThomas
      E. Barton ChownChief
      Executive Officer
### §3081. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 89–10, title IV, §4301, as added Pub. L. 100–297, title I, §1001, Apr. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 240, which stated findings of Congress relating to Allen J. Ellender Fellowship Program, was omitted in the general amendment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. 89–10, by Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3519.

Prior sections 3081 to 3086 were repealed by Pub. L. 97–35, title V, §587(a)(1), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 480, eff. Oct. 1, 1982.

Section 3081, Pub. L. 89–10, title IV, §401, as added Pub. L. 95–561, title IV, §401, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2229, set out purpose of provisions relating to educational improvement, resources, and support.

Section 3082, Pub. L. 89–10, title IV, §402, as added Pub. L. 95–561, title IV, §401, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2229; amended Pub. L. 96–88, title III, §301(a)(1), title V, §507, Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 677, 692, authorized appropriations for making of grants.

Section 3083, Pub. L. 89–10, title IV, §403, as added Pub. L. 95–561, title IV, §401, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2231; amended Pub. L. 96–88, title III, §301(a)(1), title V, §507, Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 677, 692, related to allotments to States and funding.

Section 3084, Pub. L. 89–10, title IV, §404, as added Pub. L. 95–561, title IV, §401, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2232; amended Pub. L. 96–46, §1(13)–(15), Aug. 6, 1979, 93 Stat. 339; Pub. L. 96–88, title III, §301(a)(1), title V, §507, Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 677, 692, related to submission, form, contents, etc. of State plans.

Section 3085, Pub. L. 89–10, title IV, §405, as added Pub. L. 95–561, title IV, §401, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2234; amended Pub. L. 96–88, title III, §301(a)(1), title V, §507, Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 677, 692, related to payments to States.

Section 3086, Pub. L. 89–10, title IV, §406, as added Pub. L. 95–561, title IV, §401, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2234; amended Pub. L. 96–88, title III, §301(a)(1), title V, §507, Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 677, 692, related to participation of children enrolled in public schools in the purposes and benefits of program of educational improvement, resources, and support.
#### William Koellmer *v.*Chrysler Motors Corporation et al.

*Richard A. Silver,*in support of the petition.

*Melvin J. Silverman,*in opposition.

Submitted March 10

decided March 24, 1971

The petition by the defendant Norwalk Dodge Corporation for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.