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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3676 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3676

To amend the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization 
   Act for Fiscal Year 2012 to specifically state that United States 
citizens may not be detained against their will without all the rights 
of due process afforded to citizens in a court ordained or established 
   by or under Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 15, 2011

Mr. Landry (for himself, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Bucshon, Mr. 
 Huelskamp, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Walsh of Illinois, Mr. Rokita, 
Mr. Labrador, Mr. Harris, Mr. Stutzman, Mr. Ribble, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. 
Culberson, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
    Gohmert, Mr. Clarke of Michigan, and Mr. Gosar) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, 
and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization 
   Act for Fiscal Year 2012 to specifically state that United States 
citizens may not be detained against their will without all the rights 
of due process afforded to citizens in a court ordained or established 
   by or under Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

    (a) Application to Detainee Provisions.--Subsection (e) of section 
1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Protections.--
            ``(1) United states citizens.--In applying this section and 
        section 1022, no United States citizen may be detained against 
        his or her will without all the rights of due process afforded 
        to the citizen in a court ordained or established by or under 
        Article III of the Constitution of the United States.
            ``(2) Lawful resident aliens and other persons in the 
        united states.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
        affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of 
        lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other 
        persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as of the date of the enactment of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 239.1 Purpose and scope of the guides.

The Guides for the Advertising of Warranties and Guarantees are intended to help advertisers avoid unfair or deceptive practices in the advertising of warranties or guarantees. The Guides are based upon Commission cases, and reflect changes in circumstances brought about by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2301 *et seq.*) and the FTC Rules promulgated pursuant to the Act (16 CFR parts 701 and 702). The Guides do not purport to anticipate all possible unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the advertising of warranties or guarantees and the Guides should not be interpreted to limit the Commission's authority to proceed against such acts or practices under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Commission may bring an action under section 5 against any advertiser who misrepresents the product or service offered, who misrepresents the terms or conditions of the warranty offered, or who employs other deceptive or unfair means.

Section 239.2 of the Guides applies only to advertisements for written warranties on consumer products, as “written warranty” and “consumer product” are defined in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301, that are covered by the Rule on Pre-Sale Availability or Written Warranty Terms, 16 CFR part 702. The other sections of the Guides apply to the advertising of any warranty or guarantee.

[50 FR 18470, May 1, 1985; 50 FR 20899, May 21, 1985]
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendment No. 1 for the HI-STORM UMAX Cask Storage System.

Accession Number: ML15252A426

Date Released: Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML15252A416 - Ltr to K. Manzione, Holtec International re: Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendment No. 1 for the HI-STORM UMAX Cask Storage System (TAC No. L24938). (3 page(s), 9/8/2015)
    - ML15252A418 - Certificate of Compliance for Spent Fuel Storage Casks No. 1040, Amendment No. 1. (5 page(s), 9/8/2015)
    - ML15252A419 - Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System. (38 page(s), 9/8/2015)
    - ML15252A422 - Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Appendix B, Approved Contents and Design Features for the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System. (52 page(s), 9/8/2015)
    - ML15252A423 - Safety Evaluation Report, HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, Amendment No. 1, Holtec International, Inc., Certificate of Compliance No. 1040. (8 page(s), 9/8/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### § 0.735-34 Effective date of supplementary regulations.

Supplementary regulations prescribed pursuant to § 0.735-33, shall become effective upon approval by the issuing officer unless a different date is required by law or a later date is specified therein.
* 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. 00-40196 Summary Calendar

THOMAS V. MILLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
VAN ALSTYNE, TEXAS;
ROBERT H. HYNDS, Trustee;
HYNDS & GORDON LAW FIRM,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:99-CV-257

-------------------- April 2, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Thomas V. Miller argues that the dist rict court erred in

granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his complaint for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted because his claims that the

defendants defrauded him of his p roperty have not been fully

litigated in any forum. Miller argues that he was entitled to have

a jury trial on the factual issues raised in his complaint.No. 00-40196

-2-

Miller failed to carry his burden of establishing a basis for

the district court to exercise its federal subject matter

jurisdiction. See Stockman v. FEC

, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir.

1998). His complaint reflected that the parties were not diverse,

and it failed to raise a federal question issue. S ee 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, 1332, 1343. Therefore, the district court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction over the case.

Miller’s appeal failed to raise an issue of arguable merit,

and, accordingly, is DISMISSED as frivolous. S ee 5th Cir. R. 42.2;

Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).

Miller’s four motions for order to inves tigate theft by Van

Alstyne Police & Texas Ranger and his motion to reopen the judgment

are DENIED.

The appellees’ moti on for attorney’s fees and double costs

under Fed. R. App. P. 38 is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to

the district court to determine the amount of reasonable attorney’s

fees incurred on appeal. The appellees should submit a bill of

costs to the Clerk of this court.

The court warns Miller that additional frivolous suits or

appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite further

sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
Skip to Content

        -   Log in            -  Log inEmailPassword Show Password	            Remember meAlready have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 
        -            -  Forgot your password?Email Already have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 
        -            -  Resend confirmation instructionsEmail Already have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 
        -   Sign Up            -  Sign upEmail Password Passwords must be at least 6 characters and contain at least one lower-case letter, one upper-case letter, one number, and one punctuation mark or symbolPassword confirmation  Show Password            Already have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 

# Search Publications

- Home

#           Grain: World Markets and Trade            FAS

----

Frequency of Release:Monthly

----

Category:Crops and Crop Products:Grains and OilseedsAgriculture Economics and Management:Retail and Market Prices

Keywords:coarse grainsexportsflourimportsricetradewheat

----

## Releases

            -  « Previous 
            -  Next » 
            -  1 
            -  2 
            -  3 
            -  4 
            -  5 
            -  ... 
            -  28 
            -  29 

| Sep 12, 2024 | PDF | Sep 12, 2024: Grain: World Markets and Trade detailsx                Sep 12, 2024: Grain: World Markets and TradeRelease datetime:Sep 12, 2024Close |
|--------------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Contact office name:Foreign Agricultural Service

Contact email:Press@fas.usda.gov

##         Agency Announcements        
Do you also want to subscribe to all agency announcements from ?
NoYesFooter content with page navigation, site information, and copyright.-  Home 
-  Release Calendar 
×Release CalendarClose
-  About
-  Help 
-  Contact 
-  API 

The USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System (ESMIS) contains over 2,100 publications from five agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These materials cover U.S. and international agriculture and related      topics. Mann Library at Cornell University developed and maintains this site.

© 2024 USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System
USDA ESMIS partners list with links to their websites.Partners:- Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
- Economic Research Service (ERS)
- Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)
- National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
- World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB)
- 
- Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University
- United States Department of Agriculture
Cornell development contact information.Developed & supported by:
**Albert R. Mann Library**Cornell UniversityIthaca, NY 14853-4301 Phone: (607) 255-3296 Email: usda-help@cornell.edu
(logo) BERKADIA®

 

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Year EndedDecember 31, 2021 (the “Reporting Period”)

 

*GSMortgage Securities Corporation II,  *

*Series2019-GC39*

 

Pursuantto Section 3.01 (32) of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referencedtransaction (the “Servicing Agreement”), as an authorized officer of BerkadiaCommercial Mortgage LLC (“Berkadia”), I hereby attest that:

 

i.                    Areview of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the (‘reporting period”) hasbeen made under my supervision.

 

ii.                  To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer hasfulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this SubservicingAgreement throughout the Reporting Period and no default by the Subservicerunder the Subservicing Agreement has occurred and is continuing.

 

Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, 

 

 /s/ Mark E. McCool

 

MarkE. McCool

President

February10, 2022
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3614

___________

Debby Rose, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Cox Health Systems, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee, *

*

Wal-Mart Supercenter, *

*

Defendant, *

*

Springfield-Greene County *

Health Department, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 6, 2010

Filed: May 26, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

Debby Rose appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in her disability-discrimination action. After reviewing the record de novo, and

viewing it in the light most favorable to Rose, see Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 486

F.3d 480, 482 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review), we conclude that summary

judgment was proper. For the reasons stated by the district court, we agree that there

was insufficient evidence to show that Rose was a qualified individual with a

disability or a person “regarded as” disabled. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B. We also deny Rose’s pending motion to supplement the record with

documents that were not before the district court, see United States v. Drefke, 707

F.2d 978, 983 (8th Cir. 1983) (appellate court must review case on record before

district court), and deny her pending motion to stay.

______________________________
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determin ed that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-40127

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS GUADALUPE MOLINA, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(L-CA-94-14)

________________________________________________

February 8, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jesus Guadalupe Molina, Jr., who appeals pro se the denial of

his § 2255 motion, is before our court for the second time on this

matter. S ee United States v. Molina

, No. 94-60182 (5th Cir. 1994)

(remanding for factual determination whether Molina requested his

counsel file notice o f appeal). Molina contends that he was

denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to

file a timely notice of appeal, even though Molina had requested

that an appeal of his sentence be filed. (Molina's conviction is

pursuant to a plea of guilty.) On remand, the district court held- 2 -

an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Molina had, i n fact,

made such a request.

In reviewing the denial of a § 2255 motion, we review findings

of fact only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Gipson , 985

F.2d 212, 214 (5th Cir. 1993). Based on our review of the record,

we conclude that the district court's determination that Molina

never requested that his attorney appeal his sentence is supported

by both the testimony of Molina's attorney and by the inconsistency

of Molina's contentions. Moreover, we will not disturb the

district court's finding that the testimony of Molina's counsel was

more credible than Molina's. United States v. Bass , 10 F.3d 256,

258 (5th Cir. 1993) (court gives credence to credibility

determinations unless clearly erroneous).

The district court's finding of fact that M olina never

requested that his lawyer appeal his sentence is not clearly

erroneous. Accordingly, the denial of the § 2255 motion is

AFFIRMED

.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Salomon Smith Barney Orion Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, 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 Partnership.

|                                                                                  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/    Jennifer Magro                                        |
| Jennifer MagroCitigroup Managed Futures LLC Chief Financial Officer and Director |
|                                                                                  |

May 14, 2007

----
#### §§ 1450.1-1450.2 [Reserved]
Exhibit 31.2



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



         In connection with the Annual Report of Image Technology Laboratories,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, David Ryon,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as added bY ss.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. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
        of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the
        Report.






Date:    April 2, 2004                          By:  /S/ DAVID RYON
                                                -----------------------



<PAGE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

I, Ted T.H. Jeong, Chief Financial Officer of Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: August 23, 2005

 

/s/ Ted T.H. Jeong          

Ted T.H. Jeong

Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41326

Summary Calendar

DONALD SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

COLLIN COUNTY JAIL; TERRY BOX, Sheriff; NFN FRIZELL, Lieutenant;

COLLIN COUNTY TEXAS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CV-801

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Donald Smith, Texas prisoner # 669727, appeals the summary judgment

dismissal of a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Collin

County Texas, Sheriff Box, and Lt. Frizell.1 Smith alleges that, while he was

confined at Collin County Jail on a bench warrant from October 4, 2011, to

January 12, 2012, his constitutional right of access to the courts was violated

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 2, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

1 Collin County Jail was previously dismissed from this action.

 Case: 12-41326 Document: 00512457310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2013
No. 12-41326

because he was denied use of the jail’s law library. According to Smith, this

denial of access prevented him from researching and preparing a state habeas

application regarding his Dallas County conviction. 

A district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. 

Berquist v. Washington Mut. Bank, 500 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2007). Pretrial

detainees have a right of access to the courts. See Walker v. Navarro Cnty. Jail,

4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993). Lack of access to legal materials may constitute

an unconstitutional infringement on a prisoner’s right of access to the courts. 

See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). To prevail on an

access-to-the-courts claim, a prisoner must show an actual injury. Lewis v.

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51 (1996). Such an injury is shown when the prisoner

demonstrates that the policies or actions of prison officials have hindered his

ability to file a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S.

403, 414-22 (2002); Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351, 356.

Smith’s allegations do not set forth an actual injury for purposes of a

denial-of-access-to-courts claim. Smith did not show that his state habeas

application would contain a nonfrivolous, arguable legal claim. See Christopher,

536 U.S. at 415-16. Smith has not demonstrated an actual injury sufficient to

establish a constitutional violation of his right of access to the courts. Lewis, 518

U.S. at 351, 356. 

Accordingly, the district court judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-41326 Document: 00512457310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2013