alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### The Woodrow Wilson Center Mexico Institute and the Good Neighbor Environmental Board invite you to attend the presentation of the report: 

# A Blueprint for Action on the U.S.

- Mexico Border Thursday, June 17, 2010 Woodrow Wilson Center 3:00
- 5:30 p.m
. Fifth

- floor conference room Reception to follow Responding to a charge set by the Council on Environmental Quality , the report includes actionable recommendations on a range of environmental issues facing the U.S.

- Mexico border region , including climate change adaptation, renewable energy development, and emergency

response and management. Representatives from the U.S. and Mexican federal governments, as well as from U.S. border states and counties , will lend their perspectives on these and other issues and discuss collaborative solutions among regional, federal, and binational stakeholders. Copies of the report will be available.

For directions to the Center, please click here

. For more information, contact Robert Donnelly, program associate, Woodrow W ilson Center Mexico Institute, at robert.donnelly@wilsoncenter.org

or by calling (202

) 691

- 4050. To RSVP, please send an email to mexico@wilsoncenter.org

.

# G **OOD** 

# N **EIGHBOR** 

# E **NVIRONMENTAL** 

# B **OARD F**  **IFTH -**  **FLOOR CONFERENCE ROO M**  **W OODROW**  **W ILSON**  **I NTERNATIONAL**  **C ENTER FOR**  **S CHOLARS**  Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

One Woodrow

Wilson Plaza 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 **June 17, 2010 OVERVIEW OF REPORT**  **(3:00 -**  **4:00 PM) Welcome and Introductions**  Dolores Wesson, EPA and Designated Federal Off icer, GNEB Paul Ganster, San Diego State University and Chair, GNEB **Council on Environmental Quality** Nancy Sutley, Chair CEQ **Environmental Protection Agency** Michelle DePass, Assistant Administrator, OITA **United States of Mexico** Enrique Escorza, Head of Section Political and Border Affairs **Questions and answers from the press and the public R** **OUNDTABLE D**  **ISCUSSION :**  **A F**  **EDERAL ,**  **S TATE AND**  **L OCAL**  **S TAKEHOLDER**  **P ERSPECTIVE**  **(4:00 -**  **5:30PM) M**  **ODERATOR :**  Duncan Wood, Director , Department of International Relations, Instituto Tecnólogico Autónomo de México (ITAM); Senior Associate, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); and

Senior Advisor, Renewable Energy Initiative, Woodrow Wilson Center **Departm ent of State, Office of Mexi**  **can Affairs** Russell Frisbie, Washington Liaison, IBWC **Texas Commission on Environm ental Quality**  Steve Niemeyer, Manager for Border Affairs **Gila Resources Information Project, New Mexico** Allyson Siwik , Executive Director **Sonor a Environmental Research Institute, Arizona**  Ann Marie A. Wolf, President **Cam eron County, Texas**  John Wood, County Commissioner, Precinct 2
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

113 KA 12-00022 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILMON VINCENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT B. HALLBORG, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW B. POWERS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.), rendered March 2, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal ( see generally People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the bargained-for sentence ( see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****CHIEF NEWSLETTER
 
SuDoc Number:EP 4.2:C 58/6/
Item Number:0483-E-01 (online)
CGP System Number:001025994
 
 
1992
January
 
April
 
July
 
October
1993
January
 
April
 
July
 
Fall
1994
Spring/Summer
 
Fall
1995
Winter
 
Spring
 
Summer
 
Fall
1996
Winter/Spring
 
Summer
 
Fall
1997
Spring
 
Summer
1998
Winter
 
Spring
 
July
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
September 6, 2017********
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8112 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8112

   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to further require 
   certain additional provider screening under the Medicaid program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 2024

Mr. D'Esposito introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to further require 
   certain additional provider screening under the Medicaid program.

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

SECTION 1. MEDICAID PROVIDER SCREENING REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 1902(kk)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1396a(kk)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The State'' and inserting:
                    ``(A) In general.--The State''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) Additional provider screening.--Beginning 
                January 1, 2025, as part of the enrollment (or 
                revalidation of enrollment) of a provider or supplier 
                under this title, and not less frequently than 
                quarterly during the period that such provider or 
                supplier is so enrolled, the State conducts a check of 
                any database or similar system developed pursuant to 
                section 6401(b)(2) of the Patient Protection and 
                Affordable Care Act to determine whether the Secretary 
                has terminated the participation of such provider or 
                supplier under title XVIII, any other State plan under 
                this title (or waiver of the plan), or any State child 
                health plan under title XXI (or waiver of the plan).''.
                                 <all>
```
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LI LU, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 06-74990 Agency No. A097-361-215
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 7, 2010 ** Pasadena, California Before: TROTT and WARDLAW, Circ uit Judges, and BREWSTER, Senior District Judge. *** Li Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration 

# FILED
DEC 15 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection unde r the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility finding and will uphold the determination “unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Don v. Gonzales , 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007). “We independently evaluate each ground cited by the IJ for his adverse credibility findings. So long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.” Tekle v. Mukasey , 533 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations, alte rations, and internal quotation marks omitted). We deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination with respect to Lu’s meeting with Xu Ping and her subsequent involvement with Xu Ping’s Christian home church. Lu’s te stimony was marred by inconsistencies with her written application for asylum and by Lu’s implausible statement that Xu Ping perceived (1) something wrong “inside her heart,” and (2) that Lu was in a “foul mood,” even though she told Xu Ping she was “fine.” Because this episode was intended to explain her introduction to the church, Lu’s answers and unsatisfactory3 explanations go to the heart of her clai m that she was a victim of persecution on account of her religion. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated financial statements for the three-month period
ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           7,417
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,522
<ALLOWANCES>                                       232
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,923
<PP&E>                                          49,555
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,597
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,366
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,770
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   695
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    22
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 325
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,594
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,594
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,594
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18


</TABLE>
§ 1.501(c)(12)-1 Local benevolent life insurance associations, mutual irrigation and telephone companies, and like organizations. ( a ) An organization described in section 501(c)(12) must receive at least 85 percent of its income from amounts collected from members for the sole purpose of meeting losses and expenses. If an organization issues policies for stipulated cash premiums, or if it requires advance deposits to cover the cost of the insurance and maintains investments from which more than 15 percent of its income is derived, it is not entitled to exemption. On the other hand, an organization may be entitled to exemption, although it makes advance assessments for the sole purpose of meeting future losses and expenses, provided that the balance of such assessments remaining on hand at the end of the year is retained to meet losses and expenses or is returned to members.
( b ) The phrase *of a purely local character* applies to benevolent life insurance associations, and not to the other organizations specified in section 501(c)(12). It also applies to any organization seeking exemption on the ground that it is an organization similar to a benevolent life insurance association. An organization of a purely local character is one whose business activities are confined to a particular community, place, or district, irrespective, however, of political subdivisions. If the activities of an organization are limited only by the borders of a State it cannot be considered to be purely local in character.
( c ) For taxable years of a mutual or cooperative telephone company beginning after December 31, 1974, the 85 percent member-income test described in paragraph (a) of this section is applied without taking into account income received or accrued from another telephone company for the performance of communication services involving the completion of long distance calls to, from, or between members of the mutual or cooperative telephone company. For example, if, in one year, a cooperative telephone company receives $85x from its members for telephone calls, $15x as interest income, and $20x as credits under long distance interconnection agreements with other telephone companies for the performance of communication services involving the completion of long distance calls to, from, or between the cooperative's members (whether or not the credits may be offset, in whole or in part, by amounts due the other companies under the interconnection agreements), the member-income fraction is calculated without taking into account, either in the numerator or denominator, the $20x credits received from the other telephone companies. In this example, the 85 percent member-income test is satisfied because at least 85 percent
of the cooperative's total income is derived from member income. [T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11737, Nov. 26, 1960; 25 FR 14021, Dec. 31, 1960, as amended at 44 FR 59523, Oct. 16, 1979]
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 23, 2009

0316 

# Order

March 23, 2009

137855

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137855 COA: 278585 Wayne CC: 07-003670-01 MICHAEL LEE GOBEL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 16, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
§ 1.61-11 Pensions. ( a ) *In general.* Pensions and retirement allowances paid either by the Government or by private persons constitute gross income unless excluded by law. Usually, where the taxpayer did not contribute to the cost of a pension and was not taxable on his employer's contributions, the full amount of the pension is to be included in his gross income. But see sections 72, 402, and 403, and the regulations thereunder. When amounts are received from other types of pensions, a portion of the payment may be excluded from gross income. Under some circumstances, amounts distributed from a pension plan in excess of the employee's contributions may constitute long-term capital gain, rather than ordinary income.
( b ) *Cross references.* For the inclusion of pensions in income for the purpose of the retirement income credit, see section 37 and the regulations thereunder. Detailed rules concerning the extent to which pensions and retirement allowances are to be included in or excluded from gross income are contained in other sections of the Code and the regulations thereunder. Amounts received as pensions or annuities under the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. ch. 7) or the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. ch. 9) are excluded from gross income. For other partial and total exclusions from gross income, see the following: ( 1 ) Annuities in general, section 72 and the regulations thereunder;
( 2 ) Employees' annuities, sections 402 and 403 and the regulations thereunder;
( 3 ) References to other acts of Congress exempting veterans' pensions and railroad retirement annuities and pensions, section 122.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 6856, 30 FR 13316, Oct. 20, 1965]
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00206

- CR

Raul Villegas Garza

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR12706)

May 28 , 2015

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment and bill of cost is

modified to delete the assessment of $10,880.2 7 in attorney’s fees . It is ordered

that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00127-CR

EX PARTE STEVE PARKER

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-735-1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Steve Parker attempts to appeal the trial court’s denial of a writ of habeas corpus. 

By letter, the Clerk notified Parker that this appeal was subject to being dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction because there was no signed order from which to appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 22.62(a)(1). Parker was further warned that the appeal would be dismissed 

unless, within 21 days of the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds 

for continuing the appeal. Parker has not provided us with a signed order but has 

provided us with a motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
Ex parte Parker Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 12, 2010

Do not publish 

[CR25]
#### § 1.737-5 Effective dates.

Sections 1.737-1, 1.737-2, 1.737-3, and 1.737-4 apply to distributions by a partnership to a partner on or after January 9, 1995, except that § 1.737-2(d)(3)(iv) applies to distributions by a partnership to a partner on or after June 24, 2003.

[T.D. 9207, 70 FR 30342, May 26, 2005]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 23-0004

IN RE THE PETITION OF NADINE OLIVIA NADOW 

# FILED JUL 3 1 2023 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court State of iVlontana ORDER

Nadine Olivia Nadow has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the State Bar ofMontana after having been on inactive status since February 2021. IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of Montana, Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice oflaw in the state ofMontana. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within six months of the date of this Order, Petitioner shall submitto the Board ofContinuingLegal Education,P.O.Box 577,Helena, MT 59624, proofofattendance at thirty hours ofapproved Continuing Legal Education to be credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive status. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to Petitioner and to the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this 31st day ofJuly, 2023. For the Court, 07/31/2023

Case Number: PR 23-0004
# C_2014253EN.01005302.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/53

---

Action brought on 10 June 2014 — Venatto Design v Commission

(Case T-408/14)

2014/C 253/70

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Venatto Design, SL (Toledo, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.

---