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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2025 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2025

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 11033 South State Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Willye B. 
                     White Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2007

   Mr. Jackson of Illinois (for himself, Mr. Rush, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. 
 Gutierrez, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Bean, 
 Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Weller of Illinois, Mr. Costello, Mrs. 
Biggert, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Hare, 
 Mr. LaHood, and Mr. Shimkus) introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 11033 South State Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Willye B. 
                     White Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. WILLYE B. WHITE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 11033 South State Street in Chicago, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Willye B. White Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Willye B. 
White Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

99–011 2002

107th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 107–170

GOVERNING INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

COMMUNICATION

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC

OF LITHUANIA EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT OF NOVEMBER 12,

1992, CONCERNING FISHERIES OFF THE COASTS OF THE

UNITED STATES, WITH ANNEX, AS EXTENDED (THE 1992 AGREEMENT). THE PRESENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS EFFECTED BY

AN EXCHANGE OF NOTES AT VILNIUS ON MAY 18, 2001, AND

WASHINGTON ON DECEMBER 26, 2001, EXTENDS THE 1992

AGREEMENT TO DECEMBER 31, 2004, PURSUANT TO 16 U.S.C.

1823(a)

JANUARY 23, 2002.—Referred to the Committee on Resources and ordered

to be printed

(1)

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, January 16, 2002.

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et

seq.), I transmit herewith an Agreement between the United States

of America and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania extending the Agreement of November 12, 1992, Concerning Fisheries Off the Coasts of the United States, with annex, as extended

(the 1992 Agreement). The present Agreement, which was effected

by an exchange of notes at Vilnius on May 18, 2001, and Washington on December 26, 2001, extends the 1992 Agreement to December 31, 2004.

In light of the importance of our fisheries relationship with the

Republic of Lithuania, I urge that the Congress give favorable consideration to this Agreement.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH.

(3)

4
HomeBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsRemarks & Releases...Remarks at the Global Water Strategy Public Meeting

# 									Remarks at the Global Water Strategy Public Meeting							

Remarks

John Thompson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for EnvironmentBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs

November 17, 2021

Welcome to the public meeting for revision of the Global Water Strategy for 2022-2027.  We are grateful for your time and feedback.   

Thus far, we’ve received written comments from over 30 organizations in the nonprofit, academic, and business sectors.  Over 230 people have registered for today’s meeting, and more than 45 of you will make a comment today.   

This overwhelming response demonstrates the critical importance of water security, sanitation, and hygiene to our world.  Today, we seek your input on how we can best implement our strategy to address these challenges.  

Your feedback today, as well as the written comments submitted during the last two months, will help USAID, State, and our interagency colleagues develop a Global Water Strategy for the 2022-2027 period.   

Joining us on this virtual stage, Maura and I are pleased to welcome several representatives from other U.S. agencies.  We will all be listening to your comments carefully. 

The 2022 GWS will be delivered to Congress in October of next year.  At that time, it will also be made publicly available. 

As we plan the next five years of U.S. government efforts to increase global water security, we face a changing climate, increasing floods, and longer droughts.  It is imperative that we get it right, and we can only do so with your input.  

At the State Department, we remain committed to bringing the Global Water Strategy to life through diplomacy.  Our efforts take many shapes, such as the Ambassador’s Water Experts Program, which sends U.S. water experts to address pressing water issues around the world.  OES also works closely with regional bureaus and embassies on bilateral and multilateral initiatives that increase governments’ capacity to jointly manage transboundary river systems.   

Looking to the future, State seeks to improve our own implementation of the GWS.  Our goal is to closely involve our partners abroad to achieve GWS and national security objectives.  I welcome your feedback on how State can do this most effectively.  

We also seek to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in all aspects of our design and implementation of the 2022 GWS. 

I look forward to listening to your ideas and input today.  Thank you for your commitment to this important work. 

I’d like to turn now to my colleague, the Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Resilience and Food Security, and Interim USAID Global Water Coordinator, Maura Barry. 

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsClimate and EnvironmentConservationOffice of Conservation and Water

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 
-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
Exhibit 32.1



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 First Capital Institutional Real Estate, Ltd.-1 (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Philip G. Tinkler, as President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of First Capital Financial, L.L.C., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 result of operations of the Partnership.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    PHILIP G. TINKLERPHILIP G. TINKLERPresident, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
TreasurerMay 12, 2006
§ 498.47 Prehearing conference. ( a ) At any time before the hearing, the ALJ may call a prehearing conference for the purpose of delineating the issues in controversy, identifying the evidence and witnesses to be presented at the hearing, and obtaining stipulations accordingly.
( b ) On the request of either party or on his or her own motion, the ALJ may adjourn the prehearing conference and reconvene at a later date.
#### McGILL V. THE STATE.

(Decided June 1, 1911.)

Appeal from Clay County Court.

Heard before Hon. E. J. Garrison.

Whatley & Cornelius, for appellant.

B. C. Brick-ell, Attorney General, for the State.

Pelham, J.

Affirmed on the authority of *Patterson v. The*State, 171 Ala.; 54 South. 696; *Ingram v. The*State, 54 South. 699.
#### Issac STROGER, alias v. STATE.

6 Div. 599.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 4, 1974.

E. C. Herrin, Birmingham, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., Montgomery, David L. Weathers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Birmingham, for the State.

CATES, Presiding Judge.

Buying, etc., stolen property: sentence, five years in the penitentiary.

The only point argued is that there is no affirmative showing that the appellant had a lawyer when he appeared in the Criminal Court of Jefferson County. [Not the trial court.]

Appellant argues that he waived a preliminary hearing and thereafter came indictment.

Whether he has a lawyer or not is not material. The conferment of a preliminary hearing is not required by either State or Federal constitution. Rhodes v. State, 50 Ala.App. 661, 282 So.2d 100.

Moreover, the appellant failed to raise the question in the circuit court.

We have reviewed the entire record under Code 1940, T. 15, § 389 and consider that the judgment below should be

Affirmed.

All the Judges concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YOSMANY MOLINA-CARILLO,

Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 19-72982

Agency No. A203-498-774

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted June 8, 2021

Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, CALLAHAN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Yosmany Molina-Carillo, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order summarily

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s ("IJ") decision denying his

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture. We deny the petition.

FILED

SEP 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Petitioner’s

appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E); see Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006,

1009 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating standard of review). Summary dismissal is

appropriate if the petitioner has failed to provide the BIA with "meaningful

guidance" as to the reasons for the appeal, either in his Notice of Appeal or in a

separate brief. Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1992); Casas-Chavez

v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002). The BIA is not required to "search

through the record and speculate on what possible errors the [petitioner] claims" or

"decipher general statements of error, unsupported by specific factual or legal

references." Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 820 (9th Cir. 2003)

(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal states only that he "has fear to return to his

native country of Cuba due to his protected ground thas [sic] Political Opinion."

That is a "generalized and conclusory statement" that fails to satisfy the

regulation’s specificity requirement. Toquero, 956 F.2d at 195. We construe pro

se notices liberally. Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, No. 20-70187 (9th Cir. 2021). 

But Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal, even read broadly, does not alert the BIA as to

why he believes that the IJ erred. See Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749,

753 (9th Cir. 2004) (describing the specificity requirement).

2
2. Petitioner also asks this court to review the IJ’s decision. But because the

BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on procedural grounds, we lack jurisdiction to

consider the IJ’s underlying denial of Petitioner’s applications for relief. See id. at

752 ("[W]e may not reach the merits of the IJ’s decision here, but are restricted to

reviewing the BIA’s summary dismissal for appropriateness.").

PETITION DENIED.

3
DAVID RUSSELL POSEY,

Petitioner,

v.

KAREN ROBERTS, CHIEF CLERK & JON S. WHEELER, as Clerk of Court

, First District Court of Appeal

,

Respondent s

. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FIN AL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 7

- 1 554

Opinion filed July 6, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

David Russell Posey , pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent s

.

P ER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of quo warranto is denied on the merits

. Petitioner is

warned that the filing of any other pleadings deemed by the court to be meritless mayresult in sanctions, including but not limited to a prohi bition on pro se filings and a

referral to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary action under section 944.279,

Florida Statutes. See State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)

.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J. and LEWIS and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
#### PORTSMOUTH HARBOR LAND & HOTEL COMPANY; CAROLINE E. PEABODY; AMORY ELIOT, ADMINISTRATOR OF MARY R. PEABODY; S. ELLERY JENNISON AND MARY M. JENNISON v. THE UNITED STATES.

[56 C. cls. 494; 260 U.S. 327.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *reversed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

'The petition alleged that the United States, alter having several times in the past discharged its battery over petitioners’ land, reinstalled its guns with the intention of so firing them and without intention or ability to fire them otherwise, established a fire control and service upon that land, and again discharged all of the guns over and across it. A taking by the United States was alleged as a conclusion of fact from these specific acts, and damages were claimed. *Held,*that the taking of a servitude, and an implied contract to pay, might be inferred; and that a demurrer to the petition should not have been sustained.

"Where acts amount to a taking of property by the United States, without assertion of an adverse right, a contract to pay may be implied whether it was thought of or not.

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme •Court December 4, 1922.
(a)  A
        review of Toyota Motor Credit Corporation’s activities and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 29, 2020, as amended (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Toyota Auto Finance Receivables LLC, as seller,
        Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”) and sponsor, and Toyota Auto Receivables 2020-B Owner Trust, as issuer, during the year ended December 31, 2022 has been made under my supervision.
  (b)  To
        the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
    /s/ Scott Cooke
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000728391
<NAME> IPALCO ENTERPRISES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,765,048
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    112,744
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         119,642
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       157,851
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,155,285
<COMMON>                                       393,604
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            524,552
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 518,257
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     51,898
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,033,134
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              10,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   12,794
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 529,202
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,155,285
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      589,557
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            61,830
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     391,228
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     453,058
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        136,499
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               6,342
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 142,841
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        48,136
<NET-INCOME>                                    94,705
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,386
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   94,705
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        46,514
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         179,713
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.92
        

</TABLE>
Order entered October 2, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01044-CV

JOSEPH STUMPH, ET AL., Appellants

V.

CC-TURTLE CREEK, INC., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-11015-K

ORDER

We DENY appellants’ September 25, 2014 unopposed motion to reconsider this Court’s 

September 17, 2014 order striking the agreed appellate record. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2232-561-NC]

                    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Duke Energy                           ( print page 48259)                        Carolina, LLC's application for non-project use of project lands and waters to lease 2.39 acres of land within the project boundary to C. Stafford, LLC to expand an existing marina at the Catawba-Wateree Project, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). The proposal is located on Lake Hickory in Alexander County, North Carolina.                

                    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*                     using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (P-2232) excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*                     or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.                

Any comments on the EA should be filed by October 15, 2009 and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the project name and project number (P-2232-561) on all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “eFiling” link. For further information, contact Rebecca Martin at (202) 502-6012.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-22716 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2089 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 16, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 701 Loyola Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Louisiana Armed Services Veterans Post 

Office’’. 

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


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HR 2089 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. LOUISIANA ARMED SERVICES VETERANS POST 

2 OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 701 Loyola Avenue in New Orle5 ans, Louisiana, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Louisiana Armed Services Veterans Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Louisiana Armed 

11 Services Veterans Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 15, 

2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS