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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3333 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3333

To exempt certain coastal barrier areas in Florida from limitations on 
    Federal expenditures and financial assistance under the Coastal 
  Barriers Resources Act, and limitations on flood insurance coverage 
            under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 17, 2003

   Mr. Boyd introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Financial 
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To exempt certain coastal barrier areas in Florida from limitations on 
    Federal expenditures and financial assistance under the Coastal 
  Barriers Resources Act, and limitations on flood insurance coverage 
            under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL EXPENDITURES, 
              FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, AND FLOOD INSURANCE.

    Section 5(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 
3504(a)) and the limitations on flood insurance coverage in section 
1321(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4028(a)) 
shall not apply to any area located in Coastal Barrier Resources System 
unit P30 or FL-92 in Gulf County, Florida, as such units are depicted 
on the maps referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)).
                                 <all>
```
#### § 617.7115 How should a qualified lender disclose loan origination charges?

Any one-time charge paid by a borrower to a qualified lender in consideration for making a loan must be included in the effective interest rate as a loan origination charge. These include, but are not limited to, loan origination fees, application fees, and conversion fees. Loan origination charges also include any payments made by a borrower to a qualified lender to reduce the interest rate that would otherwise be charged, including any charges designated as “points.”
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                       AMENDMENT TO OPERATING AGREEMENT OF
                            MEDCATH OF TUCSON, L.L.C.

         THIS AMENDMENT (the "Amendment") to the Operating Agreement (the
"Operating Agreement") of MedCath of Tucson, L.L.C. (the "Company") is made and
entered pursuant to Section 11.2 of the Operating Agreement.

                                    RECITALS

         WHEREAS, the Members desire to amend the Operating Agreement in
accordance with the terms of this Amendment.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency which is hereby acknowledged, the Members agree as follows:

         1.       The following provision is hereby inserted at the end of
Section 8.4 of the Operating Agreement:

         Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in the event
         that no later than December 31, 2001 MedCath Holdings, Inc.
         ("MHI") or one of MHI's Affiliates conducts an underwritten
         public offering of the common stock of MHI or its Affiliate
         pursuant to an effective registration statement under the
         Securities Act of 1933, as then in effect, and MHI or MHI's
         Affiliate offers shares of its common stock or cash to any
         Member in exchange for such Member's Membership Interest or a
         portion thereof (the "Exchange"), MHI and its Affiliates and
         the Member may, notwithstanding the terms of this Agreement,
         engage in such Exchange upon such terms as the Member and MHI
         or MHI's Affiliate may mutually agree, and the Exchange shall
         not be subject to any restrictions on the transfer of
         Membership Interests or rights of first refusal of the
         Company or of any other Member set forth in this Agreement,
         including, but not limited to, those restrictions set forth
         in this Section 8.4.

         2.       All terms not defined herein shall have the meaning provided
therefor in the Operating Agreement.

         3.       Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions
of the Operating Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

         4.       This Amendment shall be effective when approved by the Members
in accordance with Section 11.2 of the Operating Agreement

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members have approved and consented to this Amendment as
of the 12th day of April, 2001.



                                             MEDCATH OF TUCSON, L.L.C.
                                             By Southern Arizona Hospital, Inc.

                                             By: /s/ illegible signature
                                                 ------------------------

                                             Its: President
                                                  -----------------------
#### § 603.325 Special procedures for medical records.

Medical records in the custody of the Farm Credit Administration which are not subject to Office of Personnel Management regulations shall be disclosed either to the individual to whom they pertain or that person's authorized or legal representative or to a licensed physician named by the individual.

[51 FR 41942, Nov. 20, 1986]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50237 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO EDUARDO CEDENO-ZAMBRANO, also known as Francisco Cedeno-Zambrano, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-913-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Francisco Eduardo Cedeno-Zambrano raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### § 614.4356 Farm Credit Leasing Services Corporation.

The Farm Credit Leasing Services Corporation may enter into a lease agreement with a lessee if the consolidated amount of all leases and undisbursed commitments to that lessee or any related entities does not exceed 15 percent of its lending and leasing limit base.

[64 FR 34517, June 28, 1999,as amended at 76 FR 29997, May 24, 2011]
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11898]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Arizona, dated 10/07/2009.

*Incident:*                         Sedona Flash Flood.                    

*Incident Period:*                         09/10/2009.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         10/07/2009.                    

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/07/2010.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

*Primary Counties:*                     Coconino, Yavapai.                

*Contiguous Counties:*

Arizona; Gila, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo.

Utah: Kane, San Juan.

The Interest Rate is: 4.000.

The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 118980.

The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Arizona, Utah.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002)

Dated: October 7, 2009.

Karen G. Mills,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. E9-25054 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 23, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-01014-CV
ADA RENEE LAWRENCE, INDI VIDUALLY, AND ADA RENEE LAWRENCE, AS NEXT FRIEND OF M.W., A MINOR, C.C., A MINOR, J.C., A MINOR AND Z.C., A MINOR, Appellants V. STEWART CREEK VILLAS LP, CAPST ONE REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., RESTOPROS, INC., SONG HAI DEVELOPEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C. AND CHERNO NJIE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-04308-2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Smith We reinstate this appeal. Before th e Court is the parties’ August 11, 2022

agreed motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

191014F.P05 /Craig Smith / CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ADA RENEE LAWRENCE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ADA RENEE LAWRENCE, AS NEXT FRIEND OF M.W., A MINOR, C.C., A MINOR, J.C., A MINOR AND Z.C., A MINOR, Appellants

No. 05-19-01014-CV V.

STEWART CREEK VILLAS LP, CAPSTONE REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., RESTOPROS, INC., SONGHAI DEVELOPEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C. AND CHERNO NJIE, Appellees On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-04308- 2016. Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. Justices Schenck and Garcia participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that each party bear their own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 23rd day of August 2022.
#### BONNEY v. SMITH et al.

No. 30407.

Dec. 15, 1942.

*132 P. 2d 340*

Arnold T. Fleig, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Twyford & Smith and William J. Crowe, all of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding commenced by W. C. Bonney to review an order of the'trial court granting a temporary injunction. The basis of the order was the finding by the trial court that no due notice of sale was given in a tax sale proceeding.

Subsequent to the appeal herein the case in the trial court was tried on its merits, and the court, according to the certified copy of the journal entry attached to the motion to dismiss on the trial of the cause on its merits, held that the temporary injunction should be made permanent.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the trial on the merits has finally determined all of the issues involved, and that the appeal from the order granting the temporary injunction is moot.

We are of the opinion, and hold, that the appeal must be dismissed. Where the question tried to the court has become moot, the. appeal should be dismissed. McCauley v. State, 162 Okla. 153, 19 P. 2d 561; Roper v. Board of Education of City of Okmulgee, 167 Okla. 382, 29 P. 2d 950; State ex rel. Rives v. Halley, 167 Okla. 504, 30 P. 2d 915.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and OSBORN, GIBSON, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. RILEY and BAYLESS, JJ., absent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             380
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,705
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,056
<INVENTORY>                                     51,925
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,955
<PP&E>                                          43,242
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,948
<BONDS>                                         49,199
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,809
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,273
<SALES>                                         98,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,717
<CGS>                                           81,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,563
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,001
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,030
<INCOME-TAX>                                       396
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                634
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-8591

WENLEY MCCLAREN,

Defendant-Appellant.

On Petition for Rehearing and

Suggestion for Rehearing in Banc.

Submitted: July 16, 1996

Decided: May 1, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Wenley McClaren, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Wenley McClaren appealed from a district court order

that, after a hearing, denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), amended by

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, motion in which he alleged that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel in various ways during his criminal

trial. This Court previously dismissed the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. After obtaining a response from the Government,

we now grant McClaren's timely petition for rehearing and deny his

request for rehearing en banc. Because the district court did not

appoint counsel to represent McClaren at the evidentiary hearing on

his habeas motion, we vacate the district court's order, and remand

the case for the court to conduct another evidentiary hearing in which

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel.

Though there is no constitutional right to counsel in § 2255 proceedings, "there is a statutory right to appointed counsel in a section

2255 proceeding under Rule 8, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, if an evidentiary

hearing is required." United States v. Vasquez, 7 F.3d 81, 83 (5th Cir.

1993). Other circuits that have addressed the issue have also so held.

See United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir.

1995); Rauter v. United States, 871 F.2d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 1989).

Such error is not susceptible to harmless error review. Vasquez, 7

F.3d at 85. Neither has McClaren waived consideration of the issue

on appeal. He twice requested counsel at the evidentiary hearing, and

his requests were denied. He also noted the issue in his docketing

statement and informal brief in this court.

For these reasons, we vacate the district court's order and remand

the case with instructions that the court hold another evidentiary hearing on McClaren's § 2255 motion at which he is represented by

appointed counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
FOR PUBLICATION



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

E LISIO A TENIA L ORENZO , Petitioner

,

v.

M ATTHEW G. W HITAKER , Acting Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15

- 70814

Agency No. A038

- 467

- 916

ORDER

Filed January 17, 2019

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Raymond C. Fisher and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

Order2 A TENIA L ORENZO V

. S ESSIONS

ORDER

The opinion filed August 29, 2018, and reported at 902 F.3d 930 , is WITHDRAWN . A substitute memorandum disposition is filed concurrently with this order.

The government’s petition for panel rehearing, filed November 14, 2018 (Dkt. 83), is DENIED

. The government’s motion for judicial notice, filed November 14, 2018 (Dkt. 84), is DENIED

. No further petitions for rehearing en banc may be filed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6821

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANKIE JAY CURRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00098-RGD; 4:07-cv-00034-RGD) Submitted: September 26, 2007 Decided: October 12, 2007 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frankie Jay Curry, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Frankie Jay Curry seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Curry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
# C_2017189EN.01004801.xml

| 15.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/48

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 15 November 2016

in Case E-7/16

Míla ehf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Preliminary objection to admissibility – State aid – Decision to close formal investigation procedure)

(Preliminary objection to admissibility – State aid – Decision to close formal investigation procedure)

(2017/C 189/12)

In Case E-7/16, Míla ehf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION under Article 36(2) of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for the annulment of Decision No 061/16/COL of 16 March 2016 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to close the formal investigation into alleged State aid through the lease of an optical fibre previously operated on behalf of NATO, the Court, composed of, Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order of 15 November 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant is to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---