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

Town of Harrietstown Supervisor 39 Main Street Saranac L ake, NY 12983 "
. , . .. - ' ; ' { : ~- I ; ! ' \. ! i t -/ : - , , ~.
: , .• .• . .-- - ,

Re : Essential Air Service Dear Bob, I am writing on behalf of the Saranac Lake Area Chamber of Commerce to provide our strong support for the expansion of the BAS from the Adirondack Regional Airport to Westchester County. Representing over 300 area businesses in the Saranac Lake region we recognize the increased ridership over the last year and the strong economic impact affecting our local businesses
. With the February 2014 expirati on of the current EAS quickly approaching we are requesting that the Department of Transportation and the Town of Harrietstown expli citly solic it proposals for a summer season increase in capacity to ref l ect the summer influx of passengers in the forthcoming EAS RFP . Anew flight path to New York City will bring an entirely new market of tourists to our area with the ease of daily flights
. Currently , the opti ons for travel to the city involve a two and a half hour car ride to Albany , NY followed by an additional two and a half hour train ride; a two and a half hour drive to Burlington International Airport; or a 6 hour car ride (one way travel) , The current situ ation simply complicates travel for business cliental and tourists wishing to travel to and from NYC and is leaving a large gap for potential growth our area. In conversations with several business owners and community leaders ~ the consensus is clear that the success of the Saranac Lake

- Boston daily flight schedule would be replicated with a Saranac Lake

- New York City Schedule. Increased, reliable and efficient transportation between Saranac Lake and two major population centers will prove to be a significant economi c development adv antage to our region. Sincerely , 

# ; ( ~ 1 ~ v1(} v[,{1 J

A-- Katy Vah Anden Executive Director, Saranac Lake Area Chamber of Commerce
193 Riv er Stre et . Saranac Lake , NY 129 8 3 Phone : ( 518) 891-199 0 or (80 0 ) 34 7
- 19 9 2

F ax : ( 5 j 8 ) 89 1
- 7042 w ww . s aran ac lake
. comj nfo @ saranac1 ake . c o m Saranac Lake 

# b O • . , AIHlmel1ca CItY 

# ~ ( I. '
DOZEN DIS TINC TIVE D ESTINATIO N S 2 0 06 1 9 9 8
Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 34 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 34-2 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 34-2 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 34-2 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 3 of 3
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3294 

To suspend temporarily the duty on electric juice extractors greater than 

300 watts but less than 400 watts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

Mr. ALLEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on electric juice extractors 

greater than 300 watts but less than 400 watts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELECTRIC JUICE EXTRACTORS GREATER THAN 

4 300 WATTS BUT LESS THAN 400 WATTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.85.16 Electric juice extractors greater than 300 

watts but less than 400 watts (provided 

for in subheading 8509.40.00) ................ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 3294 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

DELOISE PRICE, | 

 | 

 PLAINTIFF | 

 | 

VS. | CASE NO. 2:06-CV-721 

 | 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., | 

et al., | 

 | 

 DEFENDANTS | 

DEFENDANTS’ WITNESS LIST

 Come now the Defendants and submit the following list of witnesses who 

may be used at trial: 

1. Dr. Tai Chung, 6936 Winton Blount Blvd, Montgomery, Alabama. 

2. Wayne Lee, 717 East Artesia Blvd, Carson, California. 

3. Joseph T. Carpenter, 303 Sterling Centre, 4121 Carmichael Road, 

Montgomery, Alabama. 

4. Mike Lozano, Wal-Mart, Montgomery, Alabama. 

5. Lonnie Williams, Wal-Mart, Montgomery, Alabama. 

6. Any witness necessary for rebuttal. 

7. Any witness listed by any other party. 

 /s/ Dennis R. Bailey

 Dennis R. Bailey 

 Attorney for Defendants 

Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 32 Filed 10/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

Of counsel: 

RUSHTON, STAKELY, JOHNSTON & GARRETT, P.A. 

184 Commerce Street 

Post Office Box 270 

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0270 

(334) 206-3234 (phone) 

(334) 481-0031 (fax) 

drb@rsjg.com (e-mail) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document upon 

the following counsel of record by placing a copy of same in the United States 

Mail, first class postage prepaid, on this the 17th day of October, 2007. 

 Jock M. Smith 

 Brian P. Strength 

 Valerie Rucker Russell 

 Cochran, Cherry, Givens, Smith, Lane & Taylor 

 Post Office Box 830419 

 Tuskegee, Alabama 36083 

 /s/ Dennis R. Bailey

 Of counsel 

Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 32 Filed 10/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, David W. Brandenburg, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Intervoice, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238and 34-47986]; c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: October 12, 2004    /s/ David W. Brandenburg David W. Brandenburg Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
###### Editorial Note on Part 1045

#### Editorial Notes:Nomenclature changes to part 1045 appear at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023, and 88 FR 82238, Nov. 24, 2023.

§ 1045.90 Can information generated by private entities that is not owned by, produced by, or controlled by the U.S. Government be classified as RD?

Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1045 appear at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023, and 88 FR 82238, Nov. 24, 2023.

Yes. Under the AEA, DOE may classify information that is privately generated (*e.g.,* not under a Government contract) as RD. This may only be done in writing by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary. This responsibility cannot be delegated. Once such a determination is made, DOE must notify the public through the Federal Register. This notice is not required to reveal any details about the determination and must protect the national security as well as the interests of the private party.
#### KELLOGG et al., Respondents, v. SOWERBY et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Action by Spencer Kellogg and another against George F. Sowerby and others.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

NASH, J., not sitting.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEXANDER ANTONIO CAMPOSDUARTE, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-71222 

Agency No. A200-939-266 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 17, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Alexander Antonio Campos-Duarte, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 

application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against 

* 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

AUG 27 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-71222 

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including determinations 

regarding social distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th 

Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social 

group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s 

interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id. We deny the petition 

for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that CamposDuarte failed to establish that his proposed social group is socially distinct. See id.

at 1243 (substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that 

petitioner’s proposed social group was not cognizable because of the absence of 

society-specific evidence of social distinction). Therefore, the BIA did not err in 

concluding that Campos-Duarte did not establish membership in a cognizable 

particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) 

(in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant 

must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common 

immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct 

within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 

237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, Campos-Duarte’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because 
3 20-71222 

Campos-Duarte failed to show it is more likely than not he 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 REVIEW DENIED.
#### In the Matter of Susan Spencer, Respondent, v James Spencer, Appellant.

Submitted July 23, 2007;

decided September 6, 2007

Reported below, 35 AD3d 980.

Motion by New York Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N o. 04

- 13

- 00074

- CR

Deundra Michelle WILLIAMS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 277th Judicial District Court, Williamson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10

- 916

- K277

Honorable Ken Anderson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI , JUSTICE BARNARD, A ND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED and the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED October 16, 2013.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3580 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain women’s footwear not covering 

the ankle with coated or laminated textile fabrics. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2006 

Mr. CARPER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain women’s footwear 

not covering the ankle with coated or laminated textile 

fabrics. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN’S FOOTWEAR NOT COVERING 

4 THE ANKLE WITH COATED OR LAMINATED 

5 TEXTILE FABRICS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
2 

•S 3580 IS 

‘‘ 9902.64.12 Women’s footwear, except 

vulcanized footwear and 

footwear with waterproof 

molded bottoms, including 

bottoms comprising an outer 

sole and all or part of the 

upper, valued over $20/pair, 

not covering the ankle, designed to be worn in lieu of, 

but not over, other footwear 

as a protection against 

water, oil, grease or chemicals or cold or inclement 

weather where such protection includes protection 

against water that is imparted by the use of a coated or laminated textile fabric 

(provided in subheading 

6404.19.20) ......................... 20% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
428.370 Government-owned vehicles operated in foreign countries.       USDA is authorized to obtain insurance to cover liability incurred by any of its employees while acting within the scope of their employment and operating a Government-owned vehicle in a foreign country. (7 U.S.C. 2262).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 428.3 - Insurance
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40402

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN LEONEL SANTAY-MENDEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:07-CR-1316-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Leonel SantayMendez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Santay-Mendez has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet dated December 31, 1996 and its
Consolidated Statement of Operations covering the period from October 1,
1996 to December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statement and notes thereof.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          159454
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    78954
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    7127462
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         3413914
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2327851
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9539687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        1863280
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5918
<OTHER-SE>                                     7181715
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9539687
<SALES>                                         741759
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                741759
<CGS>                                           182637
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   182637
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                443731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               50681
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 479461
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             479461
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    479461
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        



</TABLE>
# SUBCHAPTER G - CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

- PART 342 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 

- PART 342 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION    - Subpart 342.7 - Indirect Cost Rates     - 342.705   Final indirect cost rates.
```

[House Document 109-150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

109th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 109-150

 
                 CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY

                          WITH RESPECT TO IRAN

                               __________

                             COMMUNICATION

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              TRANSMITTING

   NOTIFICATION THAT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO IRAN, AS 
DECLARED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 12170 ON NOVEMBER 14, 1979, IS TO CONTINUE 
   IN EFFECT BEYOND NOVEMBER 14, 2006, PURSUANT TO 50 U.S.C. 1622(d)

    November 13, 2006.--Referred to the Committee on International 
                  Relations and ordered to be printed
To the Congress of the United States:
    Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 
1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national 
emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its 
declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register 
and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the 
emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. 
In accordance with this provision, I have sent the enclosed 
notice to the Federal Register for publication, stating that 
the Iran emergency declared in Executive Order 12170 on 
November 14, 1979, is to continue in effect beyond November 14, 
2006.
    Our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, 
and the process of implementing the January 19, 1981, 
agreements with Iran is still underway. For these reasons, I 
have determined that it is necessary to continue for 1 year the 
national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, with respect 
to Iran.

                                                    George W. Bush.
    The White House, November 9, 2006.
                                 Notice

                              ----------                              

      Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran

    On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the 
President declared a national emergency with respect to Iran 
pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 
U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary 
threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of 
the United States constituted by the situation in Iran. Because 
our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and 
the process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements 
with Iran is still underway, the national emergency declared on 
November 14, 1979, must continue in effect beyond November 14, 
2006. Therefore, consistent with section 202(d) of the National 
Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year 
this national emergency with respect to Iran.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and 
transmitted to the Congress.

                                                    George W. Bush.
    The White House, November 9, 2006.

                                  

```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA DENISE NAILS, *

*

PLAINTIFF, * 1:06-CV-00737.WKW

*

vs. *

*

DOTHAN RESCUE MISSION, *

*

DEFENDANT. *

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

PATRICK MOODY, Esq., Hardwick, Hause, Segrest &

Walding, Dothan, Alabama hereby moves the Court to note this

his entry of appearance as counsel for and on behalf of

Defendant Dothan Rescue Mission and requests the Court and

opposing counsel to serve all future Orders, notices,

pleadings, and the like on him.

THIS the 20th day of December, 2006.

HARDWICK, HAUSE, SEGREST & WALDING

BY: /s/ Patrick Moody 

Patrick Moody (MOO110)

ASB-0905-T73M

Attorney for Defendant

Post Office Box 1469

Dothan, Alabama 36302

Phone: (334) 794-4144

Fax: (334) 671-9330

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 26 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, this date, I have served a copy

of this document on the following attorney (s) of record by

placing same in the United States Mail in a properly

addressed envelope with prepaid postage.

Angela Denise Nails

342 South Saint Andrews Street

Apartment 808

Dothan, Alabama 36301

This the 20th day of December, 2006. 

 /s/ Patrick Moody 

Of Counsel

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 26 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 2 of 2