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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3554 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3554

 To amend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act and the 
  Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act to temporarily 
 allow States to disregard the look-back requirement of these Acts for 
      purposes of determining unemployment insurance eligibility.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 20, 2003

   Mr. McDermott (for himself, Mr. Wu, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Inslee, Ms. 
  Kilpatrick, and Mr. Larsen of Washington) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act and the 
  Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act to temporarily 
 allow States to disregard the look-back requirement of these Acts for 
      purposes of determining unemployment insurance eligibility.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``TEUC and EB Amendments Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. ALTERNATIVE TRIGGERS RELATING TO TEUC SECOND TIER BENEFITS AND 
              EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

    (a) Provisions Relating to TEUC.--Section 203(c)(2)(B) of the 
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 
107-147; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) such a period would then be in effect for 
                such State under such Act if--
                            ``(i) section 203(d) of such Act were 
                        applied as if it had been amended by striking 
                        `5' each place it appears and inserting `4'; 
                        and
                            ``(ii) with respect to weeks of 
                        unemployment beginning on or after the date of 
                        enactment of this clause--
                                    ``(I) paragraph (1)(A) of such 
                                section 203(d) did not apply; and
                                    ``(II) clause (ii) of section 
                                203(f)(1)(A) of such Act did not 
                                apply.''.
    (b) Provisions Relating to Extended Benefits.--For purposes of 
conforming with the provisions of the Federal-State Extended 
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note), a State 
may, for weeks of unemployment beginning on after the date of the 
enactment of this Act and on or before December 31, 2004, waive the 
application of subparagraph (A) of section 203(d)(1) of such Act, 
clause (ii) of section 203(f)(1)(A) of such Act, or both.
                                 <all>
```
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3597 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 

Received 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study on 

the Alder Creek water storage and conservation project 

in El Dorado County, California, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 3597 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. STUDY AND REPORT. 

2 (a) STUDY.—Pursuant to the Reclamation Act of 

3 1902 (32 Stat. 388) and Acts amendatory thereof and 

4 supplemental thereto, the Secretary of the Interior (re5 ferred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’), through the 

6 Bureau of Reclamation, and in consultation and coopera7 tion with the El Dorado Irrigation District, is authorized 

8 to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of con9 structing a project on Alder Creek in El Dorado County, 

10 California, to store water and provide water supplies dur11 ing dry and critically dry years for consumptive use, recre12 ation, in-stream flows, irrigation, and power production. 

13 (b) REPORT.— 

14 (1) TRANSMISSION.—Upon completion of the 

15 study authorized by subsection (a), the Secretary 

16 shall transmit to the Committee on Resources of the 

17 House of Representatives and the Committee on En18 ergy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report 

19 containing the results of the study. 

20 (2) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The report shall 

21 contain appropriate cost sharing options for the im22 plementation of the project based upon the use and 

23 possible allocation of any stored water. 

24 (3) USE OF AVAILABLE MATERIALS.—In devel25 oping the report under this section, the Secretary 
3 

HR 3597 RDS 

1 shall use reports and any other relevant information 

2 supplied by the El Dorado Irrigation District. 

3 (c) COST SHARE.— 

4 (1) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of 

5 the costs of the feasibility study authorized by this 

6 section shall not exceed 50 percent of the total cost 

7 of the study. 

8 (2) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION FOR NON-FEDERAL

9 SHARE.—The Secretary may accept as part of the 

10 non-Federal cost share the contribution such in-kind 

11 services by the El Dorado Irrigation District as the 

12 Secretary determines will contribute to the conduct 

13 and completion of the study. 

14 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

15 authorized to be appropriated $3,000,000 to carry out this 

16 section. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
#### KINNEY’S ADMINISTRATOR *v.*R. AND G. LOCKWOOD.

Costs — administrator’s liability for — no presumption of error.

As a general rule, the party recovering judgment recovers costs.

Administrators are exempt fiom this rule, as to liability for costs, in case the suit is brought within eighteen months after the grant of administration, or during the time allowed by the court beyond that period for settlement; but costs may be recovered of them in suits brought after such time, and when the demand sued has been presented ten days before suit and rejected, &c.

A court of error will not presume that the inferior court erred; the eh’or must be shown on the proceeding.

Error. The plaintiff sued Lockwood for a demand of his intestate. On trial, he was non suited, and a judgment was rendered against him for costs, to be levied, &c. The error' complained of, is the rendering judgment for costs.

Hopkins, for the plaintiff.

*H.*Andrews, contra.

Wright, J.

The general rule is,- that a party recovering judgment shall recover costs. Our administration law excepts administrators from this rule in certain cases. If the suit is brought within eighteen months after the date of the letters of administration, or within the time allowed for the settlement, no costs are recovered. They may be recovered in suits brought after that time, or in suits brought after a year, if the demand has been presented to the administrator, ten days and rejected, and a recovery is had of the amount of the demand rejected; 29 *O. L.*237. *There*are cases, therefore, in which a judgment may be rendered against an administrator for costs; and the party who would establish the position, that a court erred in its judgment, should be prepared to show the error on the record. A court of error will not presume an inferior court erred. - In this case it nowhere appears, but the case below was onevwhere the court might give judgment for costs. Judgment affirmed with costs.
#### CUMBY V. ALABAMA CITY.

(Decided June 3, 1913.)

Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. E. Blackwood.

No counsel marked for either party.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
§ 712.4 What must a FICU and a CUSO do to maintain separate corporate identities? ( a ) *Corporate separateness.* A FICU and a CUSO must be operated in a manner that demonstrates to the public the separate corporate existence of the FICU and the CUSO. Good business practices dictate that each must operate so that: ( 1 ) Its respective business transactions, accounts, and records are not intermingled;
( 2 ) Each observes the formalities of its separate corporate procedures;
( 3 ) Each is adequately financed as a separate unit in the light of normal obligations reasonably foreseeable in a business of its size and character;
( 4 ) Each is held out to the public as a separate enterprise;
( 5 ) The FICU does not dominate the CUSO to the extent that the CUSO is treated as a department of the FICU; and
( 6 ) Unless the FICU has guaranteed a loan obtained by the CUSO, all borrowings by the CUSO indicate that the FICU is not liable.
( b ) *Written legal advice.* Prior to a FICU investing in a CUSO, the FICU must obtain written legal advice as to whether the CUSO is established in a manner that will limit potential exposure of the FICU to no more than the loss of funds invested in, or loaned to, the CUSO. In addition, if a FICU invests in, or makes a loan to, a CUSO, and that CUSO plans to change its structure under § 712.3(a), the FICU must also obtain prior written legal advice that the CUSO will remain established in a manner that will limit potential exposure of the FICU to no more than the loss of funds invested in, or loaned to, the CUSO. The written legal advice must address factors that have led courts to “pierce the corporate veil,” such as inadequate capitalization, lack of separate corporate identity, common boards of directors and employees, control of one entity over another, and lack of separate books and records. The written legal advice must be provided by independent legal counsel of the investing FICU or the CUSO.
[78 FR 72549, Dec. 3, 2013]
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1722

_____________________________

TIMOTHY EMANUEL GREEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

James Daniel, Judge.

October 8, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., and B.L. THOMAS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Timothy Emanuel Green, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Editorial Note on Part 747
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 747 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 747.6 Appearance and practice in adjudicatory proceedings. ( a ) *Appearance before the NCUA or an ALJ* — ( 1 ) *By attorneys.* Any member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any state, commonwealth, possession, territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia may represent others before the NCUA if such attorney is not currently suspended or debarred from practice before the NCUA.
( 2 ) *By non-attorneys.* An individual may appear on the individual's own behalf.
( 3 ) *Notice of appearance.* ( i ) Any individual acting on the individual's own behalf or as counsel on behalf of a party, including the NCUA Board, must file a notice of appearance with OFIA at or before the time that the individual submits papers or otherwise appears on behalf of a party in the adjudicatory proceeding. The notice of appearance must include: ( A ) A written declaration that the individual is currently qualified as provided in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section and is authorized to represent the particular party; and
( B ) A written acknowledgement that the individual has reviewed and will comply with the Uniform Rules and Local Rules in this part 747.
( ii ) By filing a notice of appearance on behalf of a party in an adjudicatory proceeding, the counsel agrees and represents that the counsel is authorized to accept service on behalf of the represented party and that, in the event of withdrawal from representation, the counsel will, if required by the ALJ, continue to accept service until new counsel has filed a notice of appearance or until the represented party indicates that the party will proceed on a *pro se* basis.
( b ) *Sanctions.* Dilatory, obstructionist, egregious, contemptuous or contumacious conduct at any phase of any adjudicatory proceeding may be grounds for exclusion or suspension of counsel from the proceeding.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LESYA SHUNEVYCH, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-72951 

Agency No. A076-667-235 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Lesya Shunevych, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen removal 

proceedings conducted in absentia in order to apply for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the 

denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 

2014). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Shunevych’s motion to 

reopen as untimely where she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. 

See Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir. 2018) (stating 

requirements for granting motion to reopen); Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1213 

(9th Cir. 2018) (stating standards for asylum and withholding of removal); Aden v. 

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating standard for CAT relief).

Further, Shunevych has not shown that the BIA denied her due process by 

failing to consider relevant evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 

1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that petitioner must overcome presumption that 

BIA considered all the relevant evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11.1    STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



                         VIRUS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.
        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS AND PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE





                                               YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                         1997           1996          1995
                                       -----------------------------------------


Net loss                               ($6,564,354)  ($1,581,936)  ($6,297,028)

Shares used in computing net
  loss per common share:
  Weighted average common stock
      outstanding during the period      8,897,784     2,120,604       688,720
  Conversion of redeemable
      convertible preferred stock (1)            0     5,519,122     5,415,951
  Common stock equivalents (2)                 N/A           N/A           N/A

Weighted average common shares           ---------     ---------   -----------
  outstanding                            8,897,784     7,639,726     6,104,671

Basic and diluted net loss per common
share                                  ($     0.74)
                                       ===========

Pro forma basic and diluted net loss
  per common share                                   ($     0.21)  ($     1.03)
                                                     ===========    ===========



(1)  Effective with the closing of the Company's initial public offering of
     common stock, redeemable convertible preferred stock converted into shares
     of common stock. Accordingly, the equivalent number of weighted average
     common shares that would have been outstanding during each period presented
     have been included as outstanding.

(2)  Common stock equivalents representing potential issuances of 1,116,246
     shares for the year ended December 31, 1997; 1,103,618 for the year ended
     December 31, 1996; and 848,115 shares for the year ended December 31, 1995
     have been excluded as their effect would be antidilutive.
EXHIBIT A 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23325-1 Filed:01/25/23 Entered:01/25/23 11:31:01 Desc:

Exhibit A - Party Appearance Sheet Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A 

PARTY APPEARANCE SHEET

NAME OF PARTY Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. 

ATTORNEY 1 Appearance Method In-Person: San Juan Courthouse 

Name Mark C. Ellenberg 

Law Firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Email mark.ellenberg@cwt.com

Phone Number (202) 862 2238

Docket Entry No. of Notice Of 

Appearance 

ECF No. 138

ATTORNEY 2 Appearance Method In-Person: San Juan Courthouse 

Name William J. Natbony 

Law Firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Email bill.natbony@cwt.com

Phone Number (212) 504 6351

Docket Entry No. of Notice Of 

Appearance 

ECF No. 3676

ATTORNEY 3 Appearance Method In-Person: San Juan Courthouse 

Name Thomas J. Curtin 

Law Firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Email Thomas.curtin@cwt.com

Phone Number (212) 504 6063

Docket Entry No. of Notice Of 

Appearance 

ECF No. 141

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23325-1 Filed:01/25/23 Entered:01/25/23 11:31:01 Desc:

Exhibit A - Party Appearance Sheet Page 2 of 2
R10E RITE

RIE

RISE

RITE RIE

be
Jefferson County |
— ~ Deschutes County
- ‘Ochoeo |
i Reservo g
L- at senor |b
Powell Nu aE 2.
bare g
~ 24 \
DESCHUTES : |
Ly -
SA? |
NATIONAL
ide
FOREST
7 cy
%
}— v
~ Pr
i Crook /County _ |
mRNA 5 Desshates] County
Brothers:
DESCHUTES
East
Pauli
nea Oy ee
Wickiup
Reservoir NATIONAL
a. °
Gos P aD
Docs Comyn
| o :
z
oz FOREST
2[S
e\¢
Big
s a

Legend
—— Planning Area
Highway
Road

— Class 1
a Class 2
Administered Lands (im

[J Bureau of Land

Management
{___] National Forest
[0 National Grassland
by Bureau of Reclamation
[EY State of Oregon
[_] Private / Other

| | Class 5

Visual Resource Management

Prineville
District

N
w. E
S
0 5 10
———
MILES
5 0 5 10
KILOMETERS

RMP Map 10: Visual Resource Management Classes

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
PRINEVILLE DISTRICT

2005

Upper Deschutes

Resource Management Plan

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,
reliably, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use

with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. This
information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product
was developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

TMO5-04-02:MW. 082605

>
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22884-1 Filed:11/14/22 Entered:11/16/22 13:59:14 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 1
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41519 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

DANIEL ALANIS

- GARZA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15

- CR

- 550

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Daniel Alanis

Garza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Alanis

- Garza h a s not filed a res ponse. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* 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 October 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41519 Document: 00513723211 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016No. 15

- 41519

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdr aw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-41519 Document: 00513723211 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
Editorial Note on Part 747
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 747 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 747.31 Scheduling and prehearing conferences. ( a ) *Scheduling conference.* Within 30 days of service of the notice or order commencing a proceeding, the ALJ will direct counsel for all parties to meet with the ALJ at a specified time and manner prior to the hearing for the purpose of scheduling the course and conduct of the proceeding. This meeting is called a “scheduling conference.” The schedule for the identification of potential witnesses, the time for and manner of discovery, and the exchange of any prehearing materials including witness lists, statements of issues, stipulations, exhibits, and any other materials may also be determined at the scheduling conference.
( b ) *Prehearing conferences.* The ALJ may, in addition to the scheduling conference, on the ALJ's own motion or at the request of any party, direct counsel for the parties to confer with the ALJ at a prehearing conference to address any or all of the following: ( 1 ) Simplification and clarification of the issues;
( 2 ) Stipulations, admissions of fact, and the contents, authenticity and admissibility into evidence of documents;
( 3 ) Matters of which official notice may be taken;
( 4 ) Limitation of the number of witnesses;
( 5 ) Summary disposition of any or all issues;
( 6 ) Resolution of discovery issues or disputes;
( 7 ) Amendments to pleadings; and
( 8 ) Such other matters as may aid in the orderly disposition of the proceeding.
( c ) *Transcript.* The ALJ may require that a scheduling or prehearing conference be recorded by a court reporter. A transcript of the conference and any materials filed, including orders, becomes part of the record of the proceeding. A party may obtain a copy of the transcript at the party's expense.
( d ) *Scheduling or prehearing orders.* At or within a reasonable time following the conclusion of the scheduling conference or any prehearing conference, the ALJ will serve on each party an order setting forth any agreements reached and any procedural determinations made.
#### § 708a.112 Voting incentives.

If a converting credit union offers an incentive to encourage members to participate in the vote, including a prize raffle, every reference to such incentive made by the credit union in a written communication to its members must also state that members are eligible for the incentive regardless of whether they vote for or against the proposed conversion.

[71 FR 77167, Dec. 22, 2006. Redesignated at 75 FR 81386, Dec. 28, 2010]