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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 533 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Cambodian-American Freedom Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2005 

Mr. REICHERT submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Cambodian-American 

Freedom Day. 

Whereas in March 1970 approximately seven million Cambodians were living under conflict between the Khmer Republic and the Kampuchean (Khmer Rouge) Communist 

Party; 

Whereas between April 1975 and January 1979, Cambodians 

were living under the communist regime of the Khmer 

Rouge Communist Party which committed acts of genocide, and as a result, at least two million Cambodians 

lost their lives; 

Whereas on May 23, 1975, President Gerald R. Ford signed 

into law the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance 

Act of 1975 (Public Law 64–23), granting Southeast 

Asian refugees the right to settle in the United States; 
2 

•HRES 533 IH 

Whereas the Khmer Rouge communist regime was overthrown on January 7, 1979, by the communist group of 

the People’s Republic of Kampuchea, which was backed 

by Socialist Republic of Vietnam; 

Whereas hundreds of thousands of Cambodians fled Cambodia to refugee camps throughout Southeast Asia, and 

Cambodians made their way to communities across the 

United States between 1975 and 1999; 

Whereas according to the United States Census 2000, there 

are approximately 206,000 Cambodians currently living 

in the United States; 

Whereas despite their tremendous loss of freedom to the communist regimes, Cambodians and Cambodian-Americans 

have shown courage and resiliency while at the same time 

remembering and honoring both their traditional culture 

and traumatic past; and 

Whereas it is important to recognize the positive contributions of Cambodian-Americans to the United States: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of Cambodian3 American Freedom Day; 

4 (2) honors and recognizes the 30th anniversary 

5 of the arrival of the first Cambodian immigrants to 

6 the United States; and 

7 (3) recognizes the contributions Cambodian8 Americans have made to the United States. 

Æ
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

09/07

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Sep 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

●

★

● ●

●

●
#### VAN DUSEN, Respondent, v. NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 11, 1914.)

Action by Anna B. Van Dusen, as administratrix, etc., against the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

FOOTE and MERRELL, JJ., dissent, upon the ground that, so far as the verdict is to the effect that Parkinson caused or directed the anvil to be thrown from the platform, it is contrary to and against the weight of the evidence. Had he done so, he would not have acted within the scope of his employment. See, also, 155 App. Div. 946, 140 N. Y. Supp. 1149.
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 79 FR 75740, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 40.53 Conditions for licenses issued for initial transfer of certain items containing source material: Quality control, labeling, and records and reports. ( a ) Each person licensed under § 40.52 shall ensure that the quantities or concentrations of source material do not exceed any applicable limit in § 40.13(c).
( b ) Each person licensed under § 40.52 shall ensure that each product is labeled as provided in the specific exemption under § 40.13(c) and as required by their license. Those distributing products to be used under § 40.13(c)(1)(i) and (iii) or equivalent regulations of an Agreement State shall provide radiation safety precautions and instructions relating to handling, use, and storage of these products as specified in the license.
( c ) ( 1 ) Each person licensed under § 40.52 shall file a report with the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards by an appropriate method listed in § 40.5(a), including in the address: ATTN: Document Control Desk/Exempt Distribution.
( 2 ) The report must clearly identify the specific licensee submitting the report and include the license number of the specific licensee and indicate that the products are transferred for use under § 40.13(c), giving the specific paragraph designation, or equivalent regulations of an Agreement State.
( 3 ) The report must include the following information on products transferred to other persons for use under § 40.13(c) or equivalent regulations of an Agreement State: ( i ) A description or identification of the type of each product and the model number(s), if applicable;
( ii ) For each type of source material in each type of product and each model number, if applicable, the total quantity of the source material; and
( iii ) The number of units of each type of product transferred during the reporting period by model number, if applicable.
( 4 ) The licensee shall file the report, covering the preceding calendar year, on or before January 31 of each year. Licensees who permanently discontinue activities authorized by the license issued under § 40.52 shall file a report for the current calendar year within 30 days after ceasing distribution.
( 5 ) If no transfers of source material have been made to persons exempt under § 40.13(c) or the equivalent regulations of an Agreement State, during the reporting period, the report must so indicate.
( 6 ) The licensee shall maintain all information concerning transfers that support the reports required by this section for 1 year after each transfer is included in a report to the Commission.
[78 FR 32340, May 29, 2013]
#### McLendon Brothers & Lochridge *v.*Meador.

July 19, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Pendleton. Eulton superior court. March 20, 1912.

*James L. Key,*for plaintiffs. *J. U. Porter,*for defendant.

Fish, C. J.

The evidence introduced upon the trial demanded a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the court did not err in directing a verdict in his favor.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 612.6 Petition to the Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals.

In order to exhaust its administrative remedies, an owner/operator who is aggrieved by the Secretary's decision to affirm, withdraw, or modify the notice of recapture as provided in § 612.5(c) may file a petition with the Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals in accordance with 10 CFR 1003.11 not later than thirty days after notification of the Department's decision.
```

[106th Congress Public Law 266]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ266.106]

Public Law 106-266
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To designate the Federal facility located at 1301 Emmet Street in 
Charlottesville, Virginia, as the ``Pamela B. Gwin Hall''. <<NOTE: Sept. 
                       22, 2000 -  [H.R. 1729]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal facility located at 1301 Emmet Street in 
Charlottesville, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the ``Pamela 
B. Gwin Hall''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Pamela B. Gwin 
Hall''.

    Approved September 22, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1729:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-587 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            May 3, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 13, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
IV 

House Calendar No. 121 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 559 

[Report No. 109–302] 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 

bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, 

Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for 

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 16), 2005 

Mrs. CAPITO, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to 

accompany the bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations 

for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations for 

4 the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 

5 and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
2 

HRES 559 RH 

1 ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. All 

2 points of order against the conference report and against 

3 its consideration are waived. The conference report shall 

4 be considered as read. 

House Calendar No. 121 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 559 

[Report No. 109–302] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference reNtember 30, 2006, and for other purposes. Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending Sep- Health and Human Services, and Education, and appropriations for the Departments of Labor, port to accompany the bill (H.R. 3010) making OVEMBER 17 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 16), 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
§ 603.1110 Other payment responsibilities. Regardless of the payment method, the contracting officer should ensure that: ( a ) The request complies with the award terms;
( b ) Available funds are adequate to pay the request;
( c ) The recipient will not have excess cash on hand, based on expenditure patterns; and
( d ) Payments are not withheld, except in one of the circumstances described in 10 CFR 600.312(g).
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2013 -**  **0329**
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Simclar, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marshall W. Griffin,
      Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, hereby certify as
      of
      the date hereof, solely for purpose of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of
      the
      United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.











/s/
      Marshall W. Griffin,
      Jr.


Marshall
      W. Griffin, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Secretary


Simclar,
      Inc.


May
      15,
      2007
#### S.K.G. Associates, Inc. *v.*Zoning Commission of the Town of New Milford

*Rudra Tamm,*in support of the petition.

*Thomas P. Byrne,*in opposition.

Decided June 5, 1984

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court is dismissed.
AFFIRM; Opinion issued October 30, 2012

In The

!1nurt of Appratfi

3Fiftt iztrkt of irxa at attaa

No. 05-12-00535-CR

FRANCISCO ANTONIO ONTIVEROS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appdllee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

I)allas County, Texas

_________

Trial Court Cause No. F10-62236-Q

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Morris, Francis, and Murphy

Opinion By Justice Francis

Francisco Antonio Ontiveros waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with

a deadly weapon, a baseball bat. The trial court assessed punishment for twenty years in prison.

On appeal, appellants attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. CaIi/àrnia. 386 U.S.

738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why. in effect.

there are no arguable grounds to advance. See high v. State. 573 S.W.2d 807. 811 (Tex. Crim.

App. [Panel Op.j 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised

appellant of his right to file a pro se response. hut he did not file a pro se response.
We have revie\ed the record and counsels brief. See BleLsoe v. S/ate. 178 S.W.3d 824.

827 (Tex, Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the

appeal is frivolous and without merit. We {ind nothing in the record that might arguably support

the appeal.

We affirm the trial courts judgment.

‘‘thLt4

M1) .LY FRAI’JCIS

TUc [ICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. App. P. 47

120535F.U05

-2-
jfittlj JOItrict at Z1tcxa at atta

JUDGMENT

FRANCISCO ANTONIO ONTIVEROS.

Appellant

No. 05-12-00535-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellec

Appeal from the 204th Judicial District

Court of Dallas County. Texas (Tr.Ct.No.

F 1 0-62236-Q).

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis,

Justices Morris and Murphy participating.

Based on the Courts opinion of this date. the trial courts judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered October 30, 2012.

FRS

JUST1C

Qtonrt of 1pptat
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION

In the Matter of the Extradition of 

 
 )

MARIA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUEZ ) 3:06-CV-761-MEF-CSC

a/k/a MARIA COONLEY
 
 
 )

RESPONDENT MARIA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUEZ a/k/a MARIA 

COONLEYʼS POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF

COMES NOW, the respondent by and through counsel, and submits her reply 

brief as specified by the court in its order of June 12, 2008.

After reviewing the brief of the government, the respondent is compelled to 

respond to two matters. First, the government accuses the respondent of “erroneously 

interpret(ing)” its two precedent cases: Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450 (1st Cir. 2000) 

and Gonzalez v. Gutierrez, 311 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2002). These cases speak for 

themselves and the inability of the United States to distinguish them thus causing them 

to claim that they are misinterpreted is disingenuous at best. Each case interpreted the 

Mexican law regarding custody and patria potestas and defined and distinguished each 

term.

The second allegation which must requires a response is that these cases 

involved the Hague Convention which somehow distinguishes them from the instant 

case insofar as the terms “custody” and “patria potestas” are concerned. Nothing could 

be further from the truth. In each case, the Court of Appeals was required to find what 

custody entailed under Mexican law. The fact that each Court then had to look into how 

the custody determined was integrated into the Hague Convention is irrelevant. The 

first determination was what was the custody status of an individual under Mexican law 

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 41 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 1 of 3
and how was this impacted by “patria potestas”. The determinations would have been 

the same regardless of the case eventually involving the Hague Convention.


 
 
 
 
 
 Respectfully submitted,







 _____//s/Ben Bruner___________


 
 
 
 
 
 Ben Bruner
 


Attorney at Law

505 S. Perry Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

(334) 323 4463


 


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

parties shown below by placing a copy of the same in the U.S. Mail, properly addressed 

and postage prepaid or served by electronic means as allowed by this Court.


 
 Done this 1st day of July, 2008.





 ________//s/Ben Bruner______________


 
 
 
 
 
 Ben Bruner

Chris Snyder, Esq.

Assistant United States Attorney

P.O. Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 41 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 41 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
###### Editorial Note on Part 31

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 31 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 31.1 Purpose and scope.

This part establishes general licenses for the possession and use of byproduct material and a general license for ownership of byproduct material. Specific provisions of 10 CFR Part 30 are applicable to general licenses established by this part. These provisions are specified in § 31.2 or in the particular general license.

[65 FR 79187, Dec. 18, 2000]
§ 490.501 Definitions. In addition to the definitions found in § 490.2, the following definitions apply to this subpart: *Alternative Fuel Infrastructure* means property that is for: ( 1 ) The storage and dispensing of an alternative fuel into the fuel tank of a motor vehicle propelled by such fuel; or
( 2 ) The recharging of motor vehicles or neighborhood electric vehicles propelled by electricity.
*Alternative Fuel Non-road Equipment* means mobile, non-road equipment that operates on alternative fuel (including but not limited to forklifts, tractors, bulldozers, backhoes, front-end loaders, and rollers/compactors).
*Emerging Technology* means a pre-production or pre-commercially available version of a fuel cell electric vehicle, hybrid electric vehicle, medium- or heavy-duty electric vehicle, medium- or heavy-duty fuel cell electric vehicle, neighborhood electric vehicle, or plug-in electric drive vehicle, as such vehicles are defined in this section.
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle means a motor vehicle or non-road vehicle that uses a fuel cell, as that term is defined in section 803 of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16152(1)).
*Hybrid Electric Vehicle* means a new qualified hybrid motor vehicle as defined in section 30B(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 30B(d)(3)).
*Medium- or Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicle* means an electric, hybrid electric, or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 8,500 pounds.
*Medium- or Heavy-Duty Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle* means a fuel cell electric vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 8,500 pounds.
*Neighborhood Electric Vehicle* means a 4-wheeled on-road or non-road vehicle that— ( 1 ) Has a top attainable speed in 1 mile of more than 20 mph and not more than 25 mph on a paved level surface; and
( 2 ) Is propelled by an electric motor and an on-board, rechargeable energy storage system that is rechargeable using an off-board source of electricity.
*Plug-in Electric Drive Vehicle* means a vehicle that— ( 1 ) Draws motive power from a battery with a capacity of at least 4 kilowatt-hours;
( 2 ) Can be recharged from an external source of electricity for motive power;
( 3 ) Is a light-, medium-, or heavy-duty motor vehicle or non-road vehicle, as those terms are defined in section 216 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7550); and
( 4 ) In the case of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, also includes an on-board method of charging the energy storage system and/or providing motive power.
[79 FR 15904, Mar. 21, 2014]
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DAVID MITCHELL, SR.,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-7074

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-1814, Judge Mary J. Schoelen.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

David Mitchell, Sr. moves to withdraw his appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

Case: 14-7074 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 08/13/2014
2 MITCHELL v. MCDONALD

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s21

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 13, 2014

Case: 14-7074 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 08/13/2014
1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4149

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Mario Hernandez-Parra, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2006

Filed: December 21, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mario Hernandez-Parra appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after

he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute one kilogram or more of a heroin mixture

or substance and 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture or substance, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. Parra contends the court

erred in concluding that he was ineligible for safety-valve relief under U.S.S.G.

§ 5C1.2(a), upon finding that he had not been completely truthful with the government

regarding his drug-dealing involvement with a co-defendant.
-2-

To receive safety-valve relief, Parra had “to show, through affirmative conduct,

that he gave the Government truthful information and evidence about the relevant

crimes before sentencing.” See United States v. Romo, 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir.

1996). We review for clear error the district court’s findings as to the completeness

and truthfulness of Parra’s safety-valve proffer. See United States v. Soto, 448 F.3d

993, 995 (8th Cir. 2006).

Upon careful review of the record before us on appeal, we cannot say that the

district court clearly erred in its findings. The evidence presented to the court

indicated that Parra was working with the co-defendant in question within the drug

conspiracy. We also disagree with Parra’s argument that granting an acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction is inconsistent with denying safety-valve relief. Safety-valve

relief and an offense-level reduction for accepting responsibility are distinct forms of

sentencing relief that entail separate requirements. In particular, a defendant who is

given an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction is not required to admit conduct

beyond his offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n. 1(a). On the other

hand, safety-valve relief requires the defendant to give a truthful proffer of all the

information he has regarding “the offense or offenses that were part of the same

course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan.” See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5);

Romo, 81 F.3d at 85 (to satisfy safety-valve criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5),

defendant was required to disclose all information he possessed about his involvement

in the crime and his chain of distribution, including identities and participation of

others); see also United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1013 n.1 (8th Cir. 2005)

(§ 5C1.2(a) is derived from and identical to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________