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

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4397 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

to provide for caches of emergency response equipment to be used in 

the event of an accident involving rail tank cars transporting hazardous 

material, crude oil, or flammable liquids. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2016 

Mr. KIND introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide for caches of emergency response equipment to be used in the event of an accident 

involving rail tank cars transporting hazardous material, 

crude oil, or flammable liquids. 

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 ‘‘Rail Safety Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4397 IH

1 SEC. 2. PREPOSITIONING OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

2 EQUIPMENT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 6 months after the 

4 enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 

5 Emergency Management Agency shall develop and prepo6 sition caches of emergency response equipment to facili7 tate the rapid deployment of resources needed to reduce 

8 damage to life, property, and the environment in the event 

9 of an accident involving rail tank cars transporting haz10 ardous material, crude oil, or flammable liquids. 

11 (b) CONTENTS.—The caches described in subsection 

12 (a) may include— 

13 (1) firefighting equipment; 

14 (2) fire suppression agents; and 

15 (3) any other safety equipment considered nec16 essary by the Administrator to respond to railroad 

17 accidents involving hazardous material, crude oil, or 

18 flammable liquids. 

19 (c) LOCATION.—The caches described in subsection 

20 (a) shall be— 

21 (1) located along rail routes over which a high 

22 volume of high-hazard trains operate; and 

23 (2) strategically prepositioned along such routes 

24 in a manner that lowers the response time of fire25 fighters to— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4397 IH

1 (A) fight fires involving crude oil and other 

2 flammable liquids; and 

3 (B) prevent such fires from spreading. 

4 (d) CONSULTATION.—In determining the contents of 

5 the caches under subsection (b) and the location of the 

6 caches under subsection (c), the Administrator shall con7 sult with the Secretary of Transportation, appropriate 

8 State and local governments, railroad carriers, and local 

9 first responders. 

10 (e) FEE COLLECTION.—The Administrator may col11 lect fees from railroad carriers, as appropriate, to develop 

12 and preposition the caches under subsection (a). 

13 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

14 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 

15 necessary to carry out this Act. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Shahila Sabjaali MAREDIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-60822.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

Burhan D. Nomani, Burhan Namonai & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Michael Justin Friedman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, U.S. Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Shahila Sabjaali Maredia, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’(BIA’s) summary affirmance of the denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In light of the BIA’s summary affirmance, we review the immigration judge’s decision. *See Mikhael v. INS,*115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997).

Maredia fails to show that substantial evidence supports that she has an objective fear of being persecuted if she returns to India. She has not shown that she will be singled out for persecution if she returns or that there is a pattern of discrimination against Muslims that she cannot avoid by moving to another part of the country. *See Zhao v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 295, 306-07 (5th Cir.2005); 8 C.F.R. § 203.13(b) (2) (iii); *Eduard v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 182, 193-94 (5th Cir.2004).

Because Maredia did not make the showing required to establish eligibility for *607asylum, she cannot meet the more stringent standard necessary to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Efe v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). Nor does the record compel a finding that Maredia met her burden of showing that more likely than not she would be tortured if she returned to India, such that she is entitled to relief under the CAT. *See Bah v. Ashcroft,*341 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir .2003).

Accordingly, Maredia’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Silagy, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 12147;

Fourth District —

August 1, 1973.

John F. McNichols, Deputy Defender, of Springfield, (J. Daniel Stewart, of counsel,) for appellant.

Richard J. Doyle, State’s Attorney, of Danville, (John R. McClory, First Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SMITH

delivered the opinion of the court:

The sole issue in this case is whether or not the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1972 Supp., ch. 38, par. 1055 — 8—1), applies to the sentence imposed in this case and requires a remandment for an appropriate sentence under that statute. The question stated must be answered “yes” in both aspects.

Hie defendant was charged in a two-count indictment with rape and incest in connection with an August 26, 1972, incident involving his sister. He entered a plea of guilty to the charge of incest pursuant to a plea negotiation agreement in which the State agreed to dismiss the rape *340count of the indictment. Following a hearing in aggravation and mitigation on November 30, the court sentenced the defendant to a term of 6 to 10 years in the penitentiary. Notice of appeal was filed on December 14, 1972, and was thus pending on January 1, 1973 when the Code became effective.

 It is the position of the People that the term “final adjudication” is a synonym for final judgment and that final judgment in a criminal case means a sentence. The difficulty with this interpretation is that par. 1008 — 2—4 of the Code provides: “If the offense being prosecuted has not reached the sentencing stage *or a final adjudication,*then for purposes of sentencing the sentences under this Act apply if they are less than under the prior law upon which the prosecution was commenced.” (Emphasis supplied.) In *People v. Chupich,*53 Ill.2d 572, 295 N.E.2d 1, the court points out that the terms “sentencing stage” and “final adjudication” do not mean the same thing and that “the appellate courts have correctly held that the penalties provided in the Controlled Substances Act are applicable to cases pending upon direct appeal. The same result will follow under the Unified Code of Corrections.” This court has pursued a like course. *People v. Mize,*9 Ill.App.3d 647, 292 N.E.2d 731; *People v. Lobb,*9 Ill.App.3d 650, 292 N.E.2d 750.

 Accordingly, the sentence imposed in this case is vacated and the cause is remanded to the circuit court of Vermilion County with directions to impose a sentence appropriate under the Code of Criminal Corrections.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

SIMONS and TRAPP, JJ., concur.
### §1147. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–93, §7, Sept. 27, 1967, 81 Stat. 230, which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this subchapter, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
#### COUNTRY WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, also known as Amtrak, Defendant-Appellee. Hui Haw So, Pyong Mun So, and Christina So, Plaintiffs.

No. 04-0513-CV.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 22, 2006.

Joseph D. Nohavicka, Jaffe *&*Nohavicka, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant.

William G. Ballaine, Landman Corsi Baílame *&*Ford P.C., New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges, and Hon. JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the *22nd*day of *February,*two thousand and six.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-Appellant Country Wide Insurance Company appeals from a December 16, 2003 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sandra J. Feuerstein, *Judge),*granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”). After hearing argument, we certified five questions to the New York Court of Appeals concerning the circumstances under which the presumption effectively created by § 388(1) of the New York Vehicle and *478Traffic Law — that a driver of a vehicle has the owner’s permission to drive the vehicle — may be overcome, sufficiently to warrant summary judgment in the owner’s favor, by uncontradicted evidence from the owner and the driver denying such permission. *Country Wide Ins. Co. v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp.,*407 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2005). The New York Court of Appeals accepted certification, *Country Wide Ins. Co. v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp.,*5 N.Y.3d 728, 799 N.Y.S.2d 767, 832 N.E.2d 1183 (2005), and has now rendered a decision on the certified questions, *Country Wide Ins. Co. v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp.,*6 N.Y.3d 172, 811 N.Y.S.2d 302, 844 N.E.2d 756 (2006), holding that when both the owner and driver deny that the driver had the owner’s permission to use the vehicle, “whether summary judgment is warranted depends on the strength and plausibility of the disavowals, and whether they leave room for doubts that are best left for the jury,” *id.*at 179, 811 N.Y.S.2d 302, 844 N.E.2d 756. Applying that holding to the facts of this case, the opinion further states that “[i]n view of the evidence that overcame the presumption of consent, with nothing on the other side of the scale, summary judgment for Amtrak is consistent with New York law.” *Id.*at 180, 811 N.Y.S.2d 302, 844 N.E.2d 756. We concur.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
### **CHAPTER 28—INDIAN EDUCATION PROGRAM**
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report of NewPage Holding Corporation and NewPage Corporation (the Companies) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Tom Curley, Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 position and results of operations of
the Companies.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Tom Curley         
|Tom Curley             
|Chief Executive Officer
|February 18, 2010
### §6443. Consultations

#### (a) In general

As soon as practicable after the President decides to take action under section 6441 of this title in response to violations of religious freedom and the President decides to take action under paragraphs (9) through (15) of section 6445(a) of this title (or commensurate action in substitution thereto) with respect to that country, or not later than 90 days after the President designates a country as a country of particular concern for religious freedom under section 6442 of this title, as the case may be, the President shall carry out the consultations required in this section.

#### (b) Duty to consult with foreign governments prior to taking Presidential actions

#### (1) In general

The President shall—

(A) request consultation with the government of such country regarding the violations giving rise to designation of that country as a country of particular concern for religious freedom or to Presidential action under section 6441 of this title; and

(B) if agreed to, enter into such consultations, privately or publicly.

#### (2) Use of multilateral fora

If the President determines it to be appropriate, such consultations may be sought and may occur in a multilateral forum, but, in any event, the President shall consult with appropriate foreign governments for the purposes of achieving a coordinated international policy on actions that may be taken with respect to a country described in subsection (a), prior to implementing any such action.

#### (3) Election of nondisclosure of negotiations to public

If negotiations are undertaken or an agreement is concluded with a foreign government regarding steps to cease the pattern of violations by that government, and if public disclosure of such negotiations or agreement would jeopardize the negotiations or the implementation of such agreement, as the case may be, the President may refrain from disclosing such negotiations and such agreement to the public, except that the President shall inform the appropriate congressional committees of the nature and extent of such negotiations and any agreement reached.

#### (c) Duty to consult with humanitarian organizations

The President should consult with appropriate humanitarian and religious organizations concerning the potential impact of United States policies to promote freedom of religion in countries described in subsection (a).

#### (d) Duty to consult with United States interested parties

The President shall, as appropriate, consult with United States interested parties as to the potential impact of intended Presidential action or actions in countries described in subsection (a) on economic or other interests of the United States.

(Pub. L. 105–292, title IV, §403, Oct. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 2804.)
# Citizenship Day and Constitution Week, 2004

Two hundred and seventeen years ago this week, delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia signed one of the most enduring documents in history: the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution is the foundation of our liberty and has guaranteed the rights of our people through a history of tremendous change and progress.

Today, we marvel at the wisdom of the Framers who toiled through a long summer of learned and contentious debates. Their work produced a document that upholds high ideals, while answering the most practical questions of governance. The charter they crafted—with its separate branches of Government, enumerated powers, checks and balances, and later the specific protections provided by our Bill of Rights—guides our Nation and inspires others around the world.

During Constitution Week, our Nation reflects on the significance of our Constitution and gives thanks for the blessings of liberty that this document helps to secure. We honor the men and women who have supported and defended it throughout our history, at times with their lives. On Citizenship Day, we reaffirm our commitment to freedom, to ensuring that our history endures, and to instilling in America's next generation the values that make our country great.

In remembrance of the signing of the Constitution and in recognition of the Americans who strive to uphold the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, the Congress, by joint resolution of February 29, 1952 (36 U.S.C. 106, as amended), designated September 17 as “Citizenship Day,” and by joint resolution of August 2, 1956 (36 U.S.C. 108, as amended), requested that the President proclaim the week beginning September 17 and ending September 23 of each year as “Constitution Week.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 17, 2004, as Citizenship Day, and September 17 through September 23, 2004, as Constitution Week. I encourage Federal, State, and local officials, as well as leaders of civic, social, and educational organizations, to conduct ceremonies and programs that celebrate our Constitution and reaffirm our rights and obligations as citizens of our great Nation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth.

[FR Doc. 04-21354

Billing code 3195-01-P
(No. 74-CC-165

#### George J. Skontos, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 11, 1974.*

George J. Skontos, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of BEFUT International Co., Ltd. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Hongbo Cao, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 the Company.





Date: September 16, 2011
By:
/s/ Hongbo CaoHongbo CaoChief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)









This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 683.710 Who is responsible for funds provided under title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and the Wagner-Peyser Act? ( a ) The recipient of the funds is responsible for all funds under its grant(s) awarded under WIOA title I and the Wagner-Peyser Act.
( b ) ( 1 ) The local government's chief elected official(s) in a local area is liable for any misuse of the WIOA grant funds allocated to the local area under WIOA secs. 128 and 133, unless the chief elected official(s) reaches an agreement with the Governor to bear such liability.
( 2 ) When a local workforce area or region is composed of more than one unit of general local government, the liability of the individual jurisdictions must be specified in a written agreement between the chief elected officials.
( 3 ) When there is a change in the chief elected official(s), the Local WDB is required to inform the new chief elected official(s), in a timely manner, of their responsibilities and liabilities as well as the need to review and update any written agreements among the chief elected official(s).
( 4 ) The use of a fiscal agent does not relieve the chief elected official, or Governor if designated under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, of responsibility for any misuse of grant funds allocated to the local area under WIOA secs. 128 and 133.
§ 661.205 What is the role of the State Board? The State Board must assist the Governor in the: ( a ) Development of the State Plan;
( b ) Development and continuous improvement of a Statewide system of activities that are funded under subtitle B of title I of WIA, or carried out through the One-Stop delivery system, including— ( 1 ) Development of linkages in order to assure coordination and nonduplication among the programs and activities carried out by One-Stop partners, including, as necessary, addressing any impasse situations in the development of the local Memorandum of Understanding; and
( 2 ) Review of local plans;
( c ) Commenting at least once annually on the measures taken under section 113(b)(14) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act;
( d ) Designation of local workforce investment areas,
( e ) Development of allocation formulas for the distribution of funds for adult employment and training activities and youth activities to local areas, as permitted under WIA sections 128(b)(3)(B) and 133(b)(3)(B);
( f ) Development and continuous improvement of comprehensive State performance measures, including State adjusted levels of performance, to assess the effectiveness of the workforce investment activities in the State, as required under WIA section 136(b);
( g ) Preparation of the annual report to the Secretary described in WIA section 136(d);
( h ) Development of the Statewide employment statistics system described in section 15(e) of the Wagner-Peyser Act; and
( i ) Development of an application for an incentive grant under WIA section 503. (WIA sec. 111(d).)
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Iowa First  Bancshares  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Kim K.
Bartling, 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:

(1)  The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 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 the Company.



/s/ Kim K. Bartling
-----------------------------------
Kim K. Bartling
Executive Vice President,
Chief Operating Officer & Treasurer

May 14, 2004

                                       1