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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1019 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1019

     Condemning the Nicaraguan Government's unjust imprisonment of 
         individuals affiliated with Mountain Gateway Ministry.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2024

 Mr. Moore of Alabama (for himself, Mr. Aderholt, Ms. Sewell, Mr. Roy, 
Mr. Carl, and Mr. Palmer) submitted the following resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Condemning the Nicaraguan Government's unjust imprisonment of 
         individuals affiliated with Mountain Gateway Ministry.

Whereas, in December 2023, eleven individuals affiliated with Mountain Gateway 
        Ministry, Marcos Sergio Hernandez Jiron; Harry Lening Rios Bravo; Manuel 
        de Jesus Rios Flores; Jose Luis Orozco Urrutia; Alvaro Daniel Escobar 
        Caldera; Juan Carlos Chavarria Zapata; Juan Luis Moncada; Orvin Alexis 
        Moncada Castellano, Cesar Facundo Burgalin Miranda, Walner Omier Blandon 
        Ochoa, and Maricela de Fatima Mejia Ruiz were arrested by the Government 
        of Nicaragua;
Whereas there is concern the Nicaraguan Government has charged each of the 
        listed individuals for crimes on baseless claims of money laundering and 
        organized crime;
Whereas the accused do not have adequate access to legal counsel;
Whereas there is concern that United States citizens affiliated with Mountain 
        Gateway Ministry are being targeted for arrest and extradition by the 
        Nicaraguan Government;
Whereas this follows a pattern by the Nicaraguan Government to quell the free 
        speech and religious rights of Christians and other non-governmental 
        organizations in Nicaragua;
Whereas, on November 30, 2022, in accordance with the International Religious 
        Freedom Act of 1998, the Secretary of State designated Nicaragua a 
        ``Country of Particular Concern'' for having engaged in or tolerated 
        particularly severe violations of religious freedom;
Whereas the Nicaraguan Government's actions are yet another example of an 
        extreme intolerance of religious organizations; and
Whereas Congress has a vested interest in upholding international religious 
        freedom and human rights: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) condemns the targeting and imprisonment of individuals 
        affiliated with Mountain Gateway Ministry without due process 
        of law; and
            (2) calls on the Nicaraguan Government to take prompt 
        action to address these violations of religious freedom and 
        international human rights.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-456 and 731-TA-1152 (Second Review)]

## Determination

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the countervailing and antidumping duty orders on citric acid and certain citrate salts from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted these reviews on May 1, 2020 (85 FR 25475) and determined on August 4, 2020 that it would conduct expedited reviews (85 FR 74759, November 23, 2020).

                    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on December 18, 2020. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5147 (December 2020), entitled                     *Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-456 and 731-TA-1152 (Second Review).*

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 18, 2020. 

William Bishop, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2020-28502 Filed 12-23-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
### §10101. Definitions

For purposes of this chapter—

(1) the term "Agency" means the Federal Emergency Management Agency;

(2) the term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency;

(3) the term "appropriate committees of Congress" has the meaning given the term in section 602 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006;

(4) the term "Department" means the Department of Homeland Security; and

(5) the term "Surge Capacity Force" refers to the Surge Capacity Force, described under section 624 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006.

(Added Pub. L. 109–295, title VI, §621(a), Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1411.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 602 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, referred to in par. (3), is classified to section 701 of Title 6, Domestic Security.

Section 624 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, referred to in par. (5), is classified to section 711 of Title 6, Domestic Security.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Any reference to the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in title VI of Pub. L. 109–295 or an amendment by title VI to be considered to refer and apply to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until Mar. 31, 2007, see section 612(f)(2) of Pub. L. 109–295, set out as a note under section 313 of Title 6, Domestic Security.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 21, 2009 

p0114 

Order 

 

January 21, 2009 

137525 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137525 

 COA: 278587 

Wayne CC: 07-007009-01 

LAJUAN ZACHARY SMITH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1416-F

Zz U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PLATE 7
USGS U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ear Citas tana Hush nel id Su

EXPLANATION

¢ ESTIMATED BLOCK-AVERAGED HEAD—
Based on measurements from four or more
wells per block

—300— LINE OF EQUAL SIMULATED FRESHWATER
HYDRAULIC HEAD—Interval, in feet, is
variable. Datum is sea level

aa DEPTH-AVERAGED DISSOLVED-SOLIDS
CONCENTRATION—Equal to 10,000
milligrams per liter

---—-— DEPTH-AVERAGED DISSOLVED-SOLIDS 92 L£" °
CONCENTRATION—Equal to 35,000 ie
milligrams per liter 35°

93°
34°
94° (
95° | i
| ai d,
96° Ya ‘
| MISSISSIPPI
Model boundary ;
'
Study area boundary [ G
of 5 ABs

ai

91°

92°
GULF QF MEXICO
Coo
[ \

0 50 100 150 MILES
Hu
Base from U.S. Geological Survey 0 50 100 150 KILOMETERS

Scale 1:2,500,000

PLATE 7B. Estimated block-averaged and simulated 1982 freshwater hydraulic head:
Layer 10, permeable zone B.

Alex K. Williamson and Hayes F. Grubb
2001
§ 882.13 Liens. ( a ) OSM, State, or Indian tribe has the discretionary authority to place or waive a lien against land reclaimed if the reclamation results in a significant increase in the fair market value; except that— ( 1 ) A lien must not be placed against the property of a surface owner who did not consent to, participate in or exercise control over the mining operation which necessitated the reclamation work.
( 2 ) The basis for making a determination of what constitutes a significant increase in market value or what factual situation constitutes a waiver of lien will be made by OSM, State, or Indian tribe pursuant to the Congressional intent expressed in section 408 of the Act and consistent with State or Indian tribal laws governing liens.
( 3 ) A lien may be waived if findings made prior to construction indicate that the reclamation work to be performed on private land shall primarily benefit the health, safety, or environmental values of the greater community or area in which the land is located; or if the reclamation is necessitated by an unforeseen occurrence, and the work performed to restore that land will not result in a significant increase in the market value of the land as it existed immediately before the unforeseen occurrence; and
( 4 ) OSM, State, or Indian tribe may waive the lien if the cost of filing it, including indirect costs to OSM, State, or Indian tribe, exceeds the increase in fair market value as a result of reclamation activities.
( b ) If a lien is to be filed, the OSM, State, or Indian tribe shall, within 6 months after the completion of the reclamation work, file a statement in the office having responsibility under applicable law for recording judgments and placing liens against land. Such statement shall consist of notarized copies of the appraisals obtained under § 882.12 and may include an account of moneys expended for the reclamation work. The amount reported to be the increase in value of the property shall constitute the lien to be recorded in compliance with existing Federal, State or Indian tribal laws: *Provided, however,* That prior to the time of the actual filing of the proposed lien, the landowner shall be notified of the amount of the proposed lien and shall be allowed a reasonable time to prepay that amount instead of allowing the lien to be filed against the property involved.
( c ) Within 60 days after the lien is filed the landowner may petition under local law to determine the increase in market value of the land as a result of reclamation work. Any aggrieved party may appeal in the manner provided by local law.
[47 FR 28599, June 30, 1982, as amended at 73 FR 67642, Nov. 14, 2008]
§ 147.12 Guideline J—Criminal conduct. ( a ) *The concern.* A history or pattern of criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.
( b ) *Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:* ( 1 ) Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged;
( 2 ) A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.
( c ) *Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:* ( 1 ) The criminal behavior was not recent;
( 2 ) The crime was an isolated incident;
( 3 ) The person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures are no longer present in that person's life;
( 4 ) The person did not voluntarily commit the act and/or the factors leading to the violation are not likely to recur;
( 5 ) Acquittal;
( 6 ) There is clear evidence of successful rehabilitation.
# C_2008327EN.01002401.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/24

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 12September 2008 — Stephens v Commission

(Case T-139/04) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Interlocutory judgment - No need to adjudicate)

(2008/C 327/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kelvin William Stephens (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 14 April 2003 altering the applicant's classification in grade, in so far as it establishes his classification in step on recruitment as Grade A6, step 1, establishes 5 October 1995 as the date on which the decision takes financial effect and failed to reconstitute the applicant's career in grade and application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant's complaint; secondly, claim for compensation in respect of the alleged damage resulting from that decision

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Commission is ordered to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission is ordered to pay all of the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 26.6.2004.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
COUNTY OF BEAVER, BY AND THROUGH THE BEAVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE BEAVER COUNTY CONTROLLERS OFFICE, Respondents

v.
MYRON R. SAINOVICH, AN INDIVIDUAL AND SAINOVICH, SANTICOLA & STEELE, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SAINOVICH & SANTICOLA, P.C.), Petitioners : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 366 WAL 2014
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 17th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 40049 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Damon Garnett,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18

- CR

- 85

- 2

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Higginson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Damon Garnett has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garnett has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 1, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40049 Document: 00515923226 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2021No. 20

- 40049

2 relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANT ED**  , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 20-40049 Document: 00515923226 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2021
#### § 202.13 Technical assistance for public participation.

Community members of a RAB or TRC may request technical assistance for interpreting scientific and engineering issues with regard to the nature of environmental hazards at the installation and environmental restoration activities conducted, or proposed to be conducted, at the installation in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2705(e) and the TAPP regulations located in 32 CFR Part 203.
#### Barbara Friedland, Appellant, v New York City Department of Education, Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 800]

Order, *396Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered December 13, 2005, which dismissed this CPLR article 78 proceeding as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This probationary principal failed to commence this proceeding within four months from the termination date of her employment *(see Matter of Lipton v New York City Bd. of Educ.,*284 AD2d 140 [2001]). Petitioner’s claims of procedural irregularities in the administrative review process are not borne out by the record. We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BLANCA ESTELA CHICAS

- DE QUINTANILLA , et al.

,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 72738

Agency Nos. A208

- 380

- 927

A208

- 380

- 928

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted May 17, 2022 * *

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Blanca Estela Chicas

- De Quintanilla and her minor daughter

, native s and

citizen s of El Salvador

, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAY 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 72738

denying their application for asylum and denying Chicas

- De Quint anilla’s

application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention

Against Torture (“CAT”)

.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

-

85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioners failed

to establish that they would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See

Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007 , 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ( a n applicant’s “ desire to be

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”)

. Thus, Petitioners’ asylum claim

and Chicas

- De Quintanilla’s withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Chicas

- De Quintanilla failed to show it is more likely than not she will be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El

Salvador

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVI EW DENIED

.
### **CHAPTER 3123—COMMISSION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF AMERICA'S HERITAGE ABROAD**

Sec.
312301.
Definition.
312302.
Declaration of national interest.
312303.
Establishment.
312304.
Duties and powers; administrative support.
312305.
Reports.
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 Constar International Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Hoffman, President and Chief Executive 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 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.



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL J. HOFFMAN                               
|Michael J. Hoffman President and Chief Executive Officer

August 14, 2008
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 4
### §703. Form and venue of proceeding

The form of proceeding for judicial review is the special statutory review proceeding relevant to the subject matter in a court specified by statute or, in the absence or inadequacy thereof, any applicable form of legal action, including actions for declaratory judgments or writs of prohibitory or mandatory injunction or habeas corpus, in a court of competent jurisdiction. If no special statutory review proceeding is applicable, the action for judicial review may be brought against the United States, the agency by its official title, or the appropriate officer. Except to the extent that prior, adequate, and exclusive opportunity for judicial review is provided by law, agency action is subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial enforcement.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 392; Pub. L. 94–574, §1, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2721.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 1009(b). | June 11, 1946, ch. 324, §10(b), 60 Stat. 243. |

Statutes at Large

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–574 provided that if no special statutory review proceeding is applicable, the action for judicial review may be brought against the United States, the agency by its official title, or the appropriate officer as defendant.
### §3408. Employee organization representation

If an employee organization has been accorded exclusive recognition with respect to a unit within an agency, then the employee organization shall be entitled to represent all employees within that unit employed on a part-time career employment basis.

(Added Pub. L. 95–437, §3(a), Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1058, §3398; renumbered §3408, Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, §906(c)(1)(B), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1226.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–454 renumbered section 3398 of this title as this section.