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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3698 

To direct the Secretary of State to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard 

Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2011 

Mr. MCCAUL (for himself, Mr. MACK, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. 

SCHOCK, Mr. YOUNG of Indiana, Mr. HARPER, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, 

Mr. PETERSON, Mr. WALSH of Illinois, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. OLSON, Mr. KING of New York, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, 

Mr. CARTER, Mr. FARENTHOLD, and Mr. ROHRABACHER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 direct the Secretary of State to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3698 IH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF IRAN’S REVOLUTIONARY 

2 GUARD CORPS AS A FOREIGN TERRORIST OR3 GANIZATION. 

4 The Secretary of State shall designate Iran’s Revolu5 tionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization 

6 under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

7 (8 U.S.C. 1189). 

8 SEC. 2. REPORT. 

9 The Secretary of State shall submit to the Committee 

10 on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and 

11 the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a re12 port on terrorist activities of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard 

13 Corps. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1706

WEIHE ZHANG,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: October 8, 2013 Decided: November 4, 2013

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Weihe Zhang, Petitioner Pro Se. Lindsay Corliss, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Weihe Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s 

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to remand.* 

We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find no 

abuse of discretion. See Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th 

Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of review for motions to 

remand). We therefore deny the petition for review for the 

reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Zhang (B.I.A. May 2, 

2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED

 * The Board’s order also dismissed Zhang’s appeal from the 

immigration judge’s denial of Zhang’s requests for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture. Because Zhang has failed to raise any 

challenges in his informal brief to the agency’s denial of these

applications, including any challenges to the agency’s initial 

adverse credibility determination, we find that these issues are 

now waived. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing appealing parties 

to present specific arguments in an informal brief and stating 

that this court’s review on appeal is limited to the issues 

raised in the informal brief); cf. Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. 

Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009) (limiting 

appellate review to arguments raised in the brief in accordance 

with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A)).
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DWAYNE ROBERTS,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-12-00112-CR

Appeal from the

346th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20090D05559)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2581

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. James P. Lloyd, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 3, 2000 Filed: February 7, 2000

___________ Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. James P. Lloyd appeals his conviction for presenting a “false, fictitious, or fraudulent” claim to the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287. After a flood damagedLloyd’s residence in Watertown, South Dakota, two friends let him store his p ersonal possessions in their rental trailers. When the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which administers federal disaster relief, rejected Lloyd’s unsupported claim for reimbursement of trailer rental expenses, Lloyd obtained rental bills from his friends, marked the bills “paid,” submitted them to FEMA to support his claim for reimbursement, and received $2,957 in disaster assistance. The government later investigatedand charged him with violating § 287. Following a bench trial, the district1 The HONORABLE CHARLES B. KORNMANN, United States District Judge

for the District of South Dakota. -2- court 1 found that Lloyd violated the statute because he falsely marked the trailer rental bills paid, and because his friends had no intention of requiring him to pay those bills. On appeal, Lloyd contends he is entitled to a judgment of acquittal because he was charged with violating the wrong statute. Falsely marking the bills paid may have been the making of a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, he argues, but it was not submitting a false claim in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287. Like the district court, we disagree. Lloyd submitted to FEMA a false or fraudulent claim for r eimbursement of disaster-related expenses. Getting his friends to bill him for the phantom expenses, and then marking the bills paid, no doubt created false statements, but it also supplied the material falsehoods that prompted FEMA to honor his bogus claim. Thus, he violated § 287, and the judgment of the district court must be affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No: 14-085 December 2, 2014

CONTACT: Dave McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Issues Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its final supplemental environmental impact 

statement for the proposed renewal of the operating license for the Grand Gulf nuclear power plant in 

Mississippi. The report concludes there are no environmental impacts that would preclude renewing the 

plant’s license.

The Grand Gulf plant is a single boiling water reactor located in Port Gibson, about 20 miles 

south of Vicksburg. It is licensed to operate through Nov. 1, 2024. Entergy Nuclear applied on Nov. 1, 

2011, to renew the license for an additional 20 years.

The license renewal review process proceeds along two tracks – one for review of safety issues 

and another for environmental issues. As part of the environmental review of the application, the NRC 

held public meetings near the plant to discuss the review process and the draft version of the 

environmental impact statement, which was published in November 2013. Comments were received 

and considered from members of the public, local officials, and representatives of state and federal 

agencies.

The NRC published its safety evaluation report, with open items, in January 2013. The safety 

report, the final supplemental environmental impact statement (NUREG-1437, Supplement 50), the 

license renewal application and other information on the review can be found on the NRC website.
#### § 24.1 Deception (general).

It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, the kind, grade, quality, quantity, material content, thickness, finish, serviceability, durability, price, origin, size, weight, ease of cleaning, construction, manufacture, processing, distribution, or any other material aspect of an industry product.
#### § 4.6 Cooperation with other agencies.

It is the policy of the Commission to cooperate with other governmental agencies to avoid unnecessary overlapping or duplication of regulatory functions.

[32 FR 8456, June 13, 1967]
§ 990.63 Discounting and compounding. ( a ) *Estimated future restoration costs.* When determining estimated future costs of implementing a Final Restoration Plan, trustees must discount such future costs back to the date the demand is presented. Trustees may use a discount rate that represents the yield on recoveries available to trustees. The price indices used to project future inflation should reflect the major components of the restoration costs.
( b ) *Past assessment and emergency restoration costs.* When calculating the present value of assessment and emergency restoration costs already incurred, trustees must compound the costs forward to the date the demand is presented. To perform the compounding, trustees may use the actual U.S. Treasury borrowing rate on marketable securities of comparable maturity to the period of analysis. For costs incurred by state or tribal trustees, trustees may compound using parallel state or tribal borrowing rates.
( c ) Trustees are referred to Appendices B and C of OMB Circular A-94 for information about U.S. Treasury rates of various maturities and guidance in calculation procedures. Copies of Appendix C, which is regularly updated, and of the Circular are available from the OMB Publications Office (202-395-7332).
§ 1304.3 Definitions. ( a ) The definitions in section 3 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052) apply to this part 1304.
( b ) *Asbestos* means a group of mineral fibers composed of hydrated silicates, oxygen, hydrogen, and other elements such as sodium, iron, magnesium, and calcium in diverse combinations and are: Amosite, chrysotile, crocidolite, anthophyllite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, and tremolite asbestos.
( c ) *Free-form asbestos* is that which is not bound, or otherwise “locked-in” to a product by resins or other bonding agents, or which can readily become airborne with any reasonably foreseeable use.
( d ) *Patching compounds* are mixtures of talc, pigments, clays, casein, ground marble, mica or other similar materials and a binding material such as asbestos which are sold in a dry form ready to be mixed with water, or such combinations in ready-mix paste form.
( e ) *Consumer patching compounds* are those that are customarily produced or distributed for sale to or for the personal use, consumption or enjoyment of consumers in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation or otherwise. The Commission considers that patching compounds for application in these consumer environments are either distributed for sale to or are for the personal use or enjoyment of consumers.
( f ) *Intentionally-added asbestos* is asbestos which is ( 1 ) added deliberately as an ingredient intended to impart specific characteristics; or,
( 2 ) contained in the final product as the result of knowingly using a raw material containing asbestos. Whenever a manufacturer finds out that the finished product contains asbestos, the manufacturer will be considered as knowingly using a raw material containing asbestos, unless the manufacturer takes steps to reduce the asbestos to the maximum extent feasible.
( g ) *Initial introduction into commerce* occurs when the manufacturer ships a product covered by this regulation from a facility of the manufacturer to a distributor, retailer, or user.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Network Processing Forum (“NPF”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Network Processing Forum, Fremont, CA. The nature and scope of NPF's standards development activities are: Identifying, selecting, augmenting, as appropriate, and publishing Implementation Agreements to encourage the development and effective use of network processing technology. 

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-26218  Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
B.C.D. 02-70 OCT 2 2 2002

EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

AN Railway, LLC

This is the determination ofthe Railroad Retirement Board concerning the 

status ofAN Railway, LLC (ANR) as an employer under the Railroad

Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231 et seep) (RRA) and the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 351 et seep) (RUIA).

In Surface Transportation Board (STB) Finance Docket No. 34247 decided

September 11, 2002, ANR filed a notice of exemption to lease from the

Apalachicola Northern Railroad Company (ANRR) (B.A. No. 2503) and

operate a total of approximately 96 miles ofrail line. The rail line extends

from Port St. Joe to Chattahoochee, Florida. The twelve stations on the rail

line are located at Port St. Joe (Milepost (MP) 0), Apalachicola (MP 20), 

Borrow Pit (MP 28), Beverly (MP 29), Sumatra (MP 40), Wilma (MP 50),

Vilas (MP 57), Telogia (MP 67), Hosford (MP 70), Greensboro (MP 84),

Hardaway (MP 88), and Chattahoochee (MP 96). As part ofthe same

transactions, ANR also purchased from ANRR equipment and other

personal property, which includes six locomotives, 148 railroad cars, seven

motor vehicles, and a variety of cranes, forklifts, communications

equipment and supplies.

Ms. Lisa L. Allen provided information regarding ANR. According to Ms.

Allen, Rail Management Corporation and Rail Partners, L.P. are the 

corporate owners ofANR. Ms. Allen stated that Mr. Michael E. Durden is

the president of ANR. She stated that ANR began rail operations and first

compensated its six employees on September 1, 2002. Ms. Allen further

stated that ANR will operate a short line railroad from Port St. Joe, Florida

to Chattahoochee, Florida. She stated that ANR interchanges with CSX

Transportation (CSXT) in Chattahoochee. She further stated that ANR will 

lease a rail yard in Chattahoochee, Florida to CSXT.

Section 1(a)(1) ofthe Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231(a)(1)),

insofar as relevant here, defines a covered employer as:

BA# 5586
AN Railway, LLC

(i) any carrier by railroad subject to the jurisdiction ofthe Surface

Transportation Board under Part A ofsubtitle IV oftitle 49, United

States Code;

Section 1 ofthe RUIA contains essentially the same definition, as does

section 3231 ofthe Railroad Retirement Tax Act.

The evidence or record establishes that ANR is a rail carrier operating in

interstate commerce. Accordingly, it is determined that ANR became an

employer within the meaning ofsection 1 (a)( 1 )(i) ofthe Railroad

Retirement Act and the corresponding provision ofthe Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act effective September 1, 2002, the date ANR

began rail operations.

V. M. Speakman, Jr.
#### § 1507.4 Bases.

The base or bottom of fireworks devices that are operated in a standing upright position shall have the minimum horizontal dimensions or the diameter of the base equal to at least one-third of the height of the device including any base or cap affixed thereto.
Panel 7: Extreme Storm Surges 

for Coastal Areas

Don Resio, University of North Florida

Ty Wamsley, US Army Engineer Research 

and Development Center
2

Overview:

Surges and their probabilities are

 very complex in time and space

A diverse group is needed to 

 develop the right tools to estimate

 these via good physics and good

numerical tools and good statistics

“A model should be as

simple as possible ...

but no simpler”

A. Einstein
3

Similar to tsunamis, exact surge values depend on many different

factors. To drive surge models, wind fields with extremely large 

numbers of degrees of freedom were developed but could not be 

used probabilistically.

As a first step, a concerted effort was spent on quantifying error 

sources in modeling and on developing a set of parameters which 

could permit accurate hurricane surge predictions and while still 

being small enough to allow the development of an appropriate 

multivariate probability distribution function
4

Figure 5: Comparison of observed USACE High Water Marks (HWM) for Hurricane Katrina

and the simulation using the H*WIND/IOKA wind fields. The red points are the values at the

recorded USACE HWMs. Thin blue lines display a 1:1 correlation as well as 1.5 ft variance on 

each side.

Accuracy for a single event with IPET 

prediction system, including objective friction

specification with “best” winds
5

Comparison of observed USACE HWMs for Hurricane Katrina and the simulation using the

PBL wind fields. at the recorded USACE HWMs. Thin blue lines display a 1:1 correlation as well

as 1.5 ft variance on each side.

Accuracy for a single event with IPET 

prediction system, including objective friction

specification with parametric winds
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certification of Chief Financial Officer**I, Michael Luetkemeyer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TranS1 Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 30, 2007       /s/ Michael Luetkemeyer  Michael Luetkemeyer  Chief Financial Officer
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Justin Griffin, Appellant

No. 06

- 17

- 00117

- CV v.

Larry McCathran, Appellee Appeal from the 71st District Court of Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 16

- 0895 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess , participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of thi s date, we find that the motion of the appellant to

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Justin Griffin, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 10, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Deb ra K. Autrey, Clerk
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-1991

LT Case No. 2019-CF-007576-A

_____________________________

YASSIEL CUELLO TORRES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Lindsay Tygart, Judge.

Rachael E. Reese and Olivia M. Goodman, of O’Brien Hatfield 

Reese, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Adam Wilson, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

December 5, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, LAMBERT, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________