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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2697 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2697

  To suspend temporarily the duty on Chromate(2-), [2,4-dihydro-4-[[2-
 (hydroxy-kO)-4-nitrophenyl]azo-kN1]-5-met hyl-3H-pyrazol-3-onato(2-)-
    kO3][3-[[4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-1-( 4-methylphenyl)-5-(oxo-kO)-1H-
 pyrazol-4-yl]azo-kN1]-4-(hydro xy-kO)-5-nitrobenzenesulfonato(3-)]-, 
                               disodium.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2005

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on Chromate(2-), [2,4-dihydro-4-[[2-
 (hydroxy-kO)-4-nitrophenyl]azo-kN1]-5-met hyl-3H-pyrazol-3-onato(2-)-
    kO3][3-[[4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-1-( 4-methylphenyl)-5-(oxo-kO)-1H-
 pyrazol-4-yl]azo-kN1]-4-(hydro xy-kO)-5-nitrobenzenesulfonato(3-)]-, 
                               disodium.

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

SECTION 1. CHROMATE(2-), [2,4-DIHYDRO-4-[[2-(HYDROXY-KO)-4-
              NITROPHENYL]AZO-KN1]-5-METHYL-3H-PYRAZOL-3-ONATO(2-)-
              KO3][3-[[4,5-DIHYDRO-3-METHYL-1-(4-METHYLPHENYL)-5-(OXO-
              KO)-1H-PYRAZOL-4-YL]AZO-KN1]-4-(HYDROXY-KO)-5-
              NITROBENZENESULFONATO(3-)]-, DISODIUM.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.12.02      Chromate(2-), [2,4- Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         dihydro-4-[[2-                                                     31/2008
                         (hydroxy-kO)-4-
                         nitrophenyl]azo-
                         kN1]-5-methyl-3H-
                         pyrazol-3-onato(2-
                         )-kO3][3-[[4,5-
                         dihydro-3-methyl-
                         1-(4-
                         methylphenyl)-5-
                         (oxo-kO)-1H-
                         pyrazol-4-yl]azo-
                         kN1]-4-(hydroxy-
                         kO)-5-
                         nitrobenzenesulfo
                         nato(3-)]-,
                         disodium. (CAS
                         No. 75199-08-5)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3204.12.45)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1000.544 What audits are required?

Pursuant to NAHASDA section 405(a), the recipient must comply with the requirements of the Single Audit Act (chapter 75 of title 31, United States Code), implemented by 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, which require annual audits of recipients that expend federal funds equal to or in excess of an amount specified by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as set out in 2 CFR 200.501. If applicable, a certification that the recipient has not expended federal funds in excess of the audit threshold that is set by OMB shall be included in the recipient's Annual Performance Report.

[77 FR 71529, Dec. 3, 2012, as amended at 80 FR 75944, Dec. 7, 2015]
#### Jose Manuel ALVAREZ-CASTRO, Ana Berta Perez Y. Perez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70369.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 19, 2007.

Jose Manuel Alvarez-Castro, Sparks, NV, pro se.

Ana Berta Perez Y. Perez, Sparks, NV, pro se.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ana Berta Perez y Perez, native and citizen of Guatemala, and Jose Manuel Alvarez-Castro, native and citizen of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their claims for asylum and cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

*603Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the threat Perez experienced at the hands of the guerillas did not rise to the level of persecution. *See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft,*340 F.3d 865, 869-70 n. 6 (9th Cir.2003). Additionally, because her fear of future persecution is too speculative in light of her family’s continuing safety in Guatemala, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Perez does not have a well-founded fear of persecution. *See Khourassany v. INS,*208 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000). Alvarez-Castro’s asylum claim is derivative of his wife’s, and it therefore also fails.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that, because they failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, petitioners were ineligible for cancellation of removal. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 November 13, 2020, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Open Source Imaging Consortium, Inc. (“Open Source Imaging Consortium”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Vida Diagnostics, Inc., Coralville, IA; and University of Genoa, Genoa, ITALY, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Open Source Imaging Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On March 20, 2019, Open Source Imaging Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 12, 2019 (84 FR 14973).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 19, 2020. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 28, 2020 (85 FR 53402).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2020-26188 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
§ 1006.110 Review of plans. ( a ) *Review* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Within 60 days of receipt of the housing plan, HUD will conduct a limited review to ensure that the contents of the plan comply with the requirements of § 1006.101, are consistent with information and data available to HUD, and are not prohibited by or inconsistent with any provision of the Act and this part or any other applicable law.
( 2 ) *Limitation.* HUD will review the housing plan only to the extent that HUD considers that the review is necessary.
( 3 ) *Incomplete plans.* If HUD determines that any of the required certifications are not included in the housing plan, the plan shall be considered to be incomplete. HUD may also consider a housing plan to be incomplete if it does not address all of the requirements of § 1006.101, and the DHHL has not requested a waiver of the missing requirement.
( b ) *Notice* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Not later than 60 days after receiving the housing plan, HUD will notify the DHHL whether or not the plan complies with applicable requirements.
( 2 ) *Notice of reasons for determination of noncompliance.* If HUD determines that the contents of the housing plan do not comply with the requirements of § 1006.101, or are not consistent with information and data available to HUD, or are prohibited by or inconsistent with any provision of the Act and this part or any other applicable law, HUD will specify in the notice under paragraph (b)(1) of this section: ( i ) The reasons for noncompliance; and
( ii ) Any modifications necessary for the plan to be in compliance.
( 3 ) *Effect of HUD's failure to take action.* If HUD does not notify the DHHL, upon the expiration of the 60-day period described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the plan shall be considered to have been determined to comply with the requirements under § 1006.101 and the DHHL shall be considered to have been notified of compliance.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 75384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26130]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 25, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 12, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 680 to Competitive Product 
List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2021-26, 
CP2021-26.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2020-26130 Filed 11-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)**

 

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Michael G.Long, Chief Financial Officer of Edge Petroleum Corporation, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:August 13, 2004 | /s/ Michael G.  Long |
|-----------------------|----------------------|
|                  | Name:                | Michael G. Long  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Joseph U. Fiore, Appellant, v. Pasquale Amoruso et al., Respondents, and Frank Ferrino et al., Intervening Defendants-Respondents.

Motion by intervening defendants-respondents to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant argue or submit the appeal at the January Term, beginning January 3, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before December 9, 1960. Motion by appellant to dispense with printing denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Motion to Reinstate Appeal Granted, Memorandum Opinion filed September 

27, 2016, Withdrawn, Appeal Reinstated, Order filed November 10, 2016 

 In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00523-CV

____________

LYNDON MAYBERRY, Appellant

V.

KINDER MORGAN CRUDE & CONDENSTATE, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 71532

ORDER

On September 27, 2016, this court issued an opinion dismissing this appeal. 

On October 27, 2016, appellant filed a motion to reinstate the appeal. The motion is 

GRANTED. 

This court’s opinion filed September 27, 2016, is WITHDRAWN, and our 

judgment of that date is VACATED. The appeal is ordered REINSTATED. The 

clerk’s record is due 30 days from the date of this order. 

 PER CURIAM
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.15 Maximum mortgage. Mortgages must not exceed either the statutory dollar amount or loan ratio limitations established by the section of the Act under which the mortgage is insured, except that the Commissioner may increase the dollar amount limitations: ( a ) By not to exceed 170 percent, in any geographical area, in which the Commissioner finds that cost levels so require; and
( b ) By not to exceed 170 percent, or 215 percent in high-cost areas, where the Commissioner determines it necessary on a project-by-project basis.
[73 FR 17239, Mar. 31, 2008]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28015]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted via teleconference. The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, January 19, 2005, at 1 p.m., 
Eastern Daylight Time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Toy at 1-888-912-1227, or 414-
297-1611.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel (TAP) will be held Wednesday, January 19, 2005, at 1 p.m. Eastern 
daylight time via a telephone conference call. If you would like to 
have the Joint Committee of TAP consider a written statement, please 
call 1-888-912-1227 or 414-297-1611, or write Barbara Toy, TAP Office, 
MS-1006-MIL, 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or 
FAX to 414-297-1623, or you can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. Due to limited conference lines, notification of 
intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be 
made with Barbara Toy. Ms. Toy can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-
297-1611, or FAX 414-297-1623.
    The agenda will include the following: monthly committee summary 
report, discussion of issues brought to the joint committee, office 
report, and discussion of next meeting.

    Dated: December 17, 2004.
Bernard Coston,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 04-28015 Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

══════════ No. WR- 94,074

- 01

══════════
EX PARTE DAMON SIMMONS, Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════ On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Cause No. 814816 -A in the 179th District Court From Harris County

═══════════════════════════════════════

Y EARY , J., filed a concurring opinion, in which S LAUGHTER , J., joined.

Applicant was convicted in 1999 of aggravated robbery and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in 2000

. Simmons v. State , No. 14

- 99

- 00890

- CR , 2000 WL 716470 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14 th Dist. ] June 1, 2000). In July of 2011 , Applicant filed an application for writ of habeasSIMMONS

– 2

corpus in the county of conviction. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC . art. 11.07. In his application, he alleges that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel for failing to conduct an adequate voir dire and that his trial counsel failed to provide an adequate defense

. Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to further develop the record. I join the Court’s remand order. But I write separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and its possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith , 444 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille , ___ S.W.3d ___,
No. WR

- 89,851

- 02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022) (Yeary, J., concurring). The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this one. Applicant’s appeal was finalized in 2000 , but this writ application was not filed until eleven years later. 1 The record is also silent regarding circumstances that may excuse Applicant’s delay, and at least some explanation for the long delay in filing should be provided. Consistent with this Court’s precedent, the trial court “ may sua sponte consider and determ ine whether laches should bar relief.” Smith , 444 S.W.3d at 667. If the trial court does so, it must give Applicant the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay and give the State’s prosecutors and/or former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state whether

1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of the State’s evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years after a conviction becomes final.” Ex parte Perez , 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe , 132 S.W.3d 434, 437

– 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)).SIMMONS

– 3

Applicant’s delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to defend against Applicant’s claims. Id. at 670. And ultimately, the trial court may include findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the doctrine of laches in its respon se to this Court’s remand order. With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.

FILED: December 7, 2022 DO NOT PUBLISH
Amendment to Confirmation of OTC Convertible Note - JPMorgan Chase Bank



  
 Exhibit 10.87

 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association 
 P.O. Box 161 
 60 Victoria Embankment 
 London EC4Y 0JP 
 England 

August 30, 2010 
 To: Gilead Sciences, Inc. 
 333 Lakeside Drive 

Foster City, California 94404 

			
	 Attention:
	  	 Treasurer

	 Telephone No.:
	  	 (650) 522-5727

	 Facsimile No.:
	  	 (650) 522-3000


 Re: Base Call
Option Transaction (2014) 
 1.        Reference is made to the letter
agreement Re: Base Call Option Transaction (2014) dated July 26, 2010 and entered into between into between JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, London Branch (“Dealer”) and Gilead Sciences, Inc.
(“Counterparty”) (the “Confirmation”). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Confirmation. 

2.        Whereas the Confirmation defined the Free Convertibility Date as
April 1, 2014, but Counterparty and Dealer wish to define the Free Convertibility Date as February 1, 2014; 
 3.        Now, therefore, each of Counterparty and Dealer do hereby agree that: 

a.        the definition of the Free Convertibility Date in the Confirmation is
hereby replaced in its entirety by February 1, 2014; 

b.        (i) J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., an affiliate of Dealer
(“JPMSI”), has acted solely as agent and not as principal with respect to the Transaction and (ii) JPMSI has no obligation or liability, by way of guaranty, endorsement or otherwise, in any manner in respect of the Transaction
(including, if applicable, in respect of the settlement thereof); 

c.        each of Counterparty and Dealer will look solely to the other party
(or any guarantor in respect thereof) for performance of such other party’s obligations under the Transaction; and 
 d.        this agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if all of the signatures thereto
and hereto were upon the same instrument. 
 [Signature Page to Follow] 







  
 
			
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., as agent for
 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association

		
	 By:
	 	     /s/ Jason M. Wood

	 Authorized Signatory




			
	 Name:
	  	 Jason M. Wood

		  	 Managing Director



 Accepted and confirmed: 
  

			
	Gilead Sciences, Inc.
		
	 By:
	 	     /s/ Brett A. Pletcher

	 Name:
	 	 Brett A. Pletcher

	 Title:
	 	 Vice President and General Counsel
§ 401.17 Statement in reply. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided pursuant to § 410.19, the applicant and, if he is a person, the Government which transmitted the application on his behalf, one or both may present a statement or statements in reply to the Commission within thirty days after the time provided for presenting statements in response. A statement in reply shall set forth facts and arguments bearing upon the allegations and arguments contained in the statements in response.
( b ) When a statement in reply has been filed, the secretary shall send a copy forthwith to each Government except the Government which presented the said statement in reply, and to all persons who presented statements in response.