alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 113–160—AUG. 8, 2014 128 STAT. 1853 

Public Law 113–160 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To provide additional visas for the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program, and 

for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT PROGRAM. 

Section 602(b)(3) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 

(8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(E) SPECIAL RULE FOR END OF CALENDAR YEAR 2014.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—During the period beginning on 

the date of the enactment of this subparagraph and 

ending on December 31, 2014, an additional 1,000 principal aliens may be provided special immigrant status 

under this section. For purposes of status provided 

under this subparagraph— 

‘‘(I) the period during which an alien must 

have been employed in accordance with paragraph 

(2)(A)(ii) must terminate on or before December 

31, 2014; 

‘‘(II) the principal alien seeking special 

immigrant status under this subparagraph shall 

apply to the Chief of Mission in accordance with 

paragraph (2)(D) not later than December 31, 

2014; and 

‘‘(III) the authority to provide such status shall 

terminate on December 31, 2014. 

‘‘(ii) CONSTRUCTION.—Clause (i) shall not be construed to affect the authority, numerical limitations, 

or terms for provision of status, under subparagraph 

(D).’’. 

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY FEE INCREASE FOR CERTAIN CONSULAR SERVICES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

the Secretary of State, not later than January 1, 2015, shall increase 

the fee or surcharge authorized under section 140(a) of the Foreign 

Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public 

Law 103–236; 8 U.S.C. 1351 note) by $1.00 for processing machinereadable nonimmigrant visas and machine-readable combined 

border crossing identification cards and nonimmigrant visas. 

(b) DEPOSIT OF AMOUNTS.—Notwithstanding section 140(a)(2) 

of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 

1995 (Public Law 103–236; 8 U.S.C. 1351 note), the additional 

Deadline. 

8 USC 1351 note. 

Deadline. 

Time period. 

Termination 

dates. 

Aug. 8, 2014 

[H.R. 5195] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
128 STAT. 1854 PUBLIC LAW 113–160—AUG. 8, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5195: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

July 30, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

amount collected pursuant the fee increase authorized under subsection (a) shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury. 

(c) SUNSET PROVISION.—The fee increase authorized under subsection (a) shall terminate on the date that is 5.5 years after 

the first date on which such increased fee is collected. 

Approved August 8, 2014. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
SECTION 32.0

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Bancorp of Indiana, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as added by 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 results of operations
            of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                     /s/ Harold Duncan
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     Harold Duncan
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer


                                     /s/ George J. Smith
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     George J. Smith
                                     Treasurer

Dated: May 14, 2004
§ 3.7 Applications for the approval of the Secretary of Labor. Any application for the making of payroll deductions under § 3.6 must comply with the requirements prescribed in the following paragraphs of this section: ( a ) The application must be in writing and addressed to the Secretary of Labor. The application must be submitted by email to *dbadeductions@dol.gov*, by mail to the United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Director, Division of Government Contracts Enforcement, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Room S-3502, Washington, DC 20210, or by any other means normally assuring delivery.
( b ) The application need not identify the contract or contracts under which the work in question is to be performed. Permission will be given for deductions on all current and future contracts of the applicant for a period of 1 year. A renewal of permission to make such payroll deduction will be granted upon the submission of an application which makes reference to the original application, recites the date of the Secretary of Labor's approval of such deductions, states affirmatively that there is continued compliance with the standards set forth in the provisions of § 3.6, and specifies any conditions which have changed in regard to the payroll deductions.
( c ) The application must state affirmatively that there is compliance with the standards set forth in the provisions of § 3.6. The affirmation must be accompanied by a full statement of the facts indicating such compliance.
( d ) The application must include a description of the proposed deduction, the purpose of the deduction, and the classes of laborers or mechanics from whose wages the proposed deduction would be made.
( e ) The application must state the name and business of any third person to whom any funds obtained from the proposed deductions are to be transmitted and the affiliation of such person, if any, with the applicant.
[88 FR 57731, Aug. 23, 2023]
§ 4220.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *General.* This part establishes procedures under which a plan sponsor shall request the PBGC to approve a plan amendment under section 4220 of ERISA. This part applies to all multiemployer plans covered by title IV of ERISA that adopt amendments pursuant to the authorization of sections 4201-4219 of ERISA (except for amendments adopted pursuant to section 4211(c)(5)). (The covered amendments are set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.) The subsequent modification of a plan amendment adopted by authorization of those sections is also covered by this part. This part does not, however, cover a plan amendment that merely repeals a previously adopted amendment, returning the plan to the statutorily prescribed rule.
( b ) *Covered amendments.* Amendments made pursuant to the following sections of ERISA are covered by this part: ( 1 ) Section 4203 (b)(1)(B)(ii).
( 2 ) Section 4203(c)(4).
( 3 ) Section 4205(c)(1).
( 4 ) Section 4205(d).
( 5 ) Section 4209(b).
( 6 ) Section 4210(b)(2).
( 7 ) Section 4211(c)(1).
( 8 ) Section 4211(c)(4)(D).
( 9 ) Section 4211(d)(1).
( 10 ) Section 4211(d)(2).
( 11 ) Section 4219(c)(1)(C)(ii)(I).
( 12 ) Section 4219(c)(1)(C)(iii).
( c ) *Exception.* Submission of a request for approval under this part is not required for a plan amendment for which the PBGC has published a notice in the Federal Register granting class approval.
#### § 1208.3 Proactive disclosure of information.

The NMB shall, in conformance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2), maintain and make available for public inspection, by posting on its Web site (unless the Board determines by order published in the Federal Register that such publication would be unnecessary or impracticable) the following information: Final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions made in representation cases; statements of policy and interpretation made by the NMB but not published in the Federal Register; administrative staff materials, such as the Representation Manual; frequently requested materials, defined as those released in response to a FOIA request and for which the Agency has received at least three requests or those records that because of the nature of their subject matter the Agency determines are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests; and a general index of records available under this section.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 42 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/27 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 27 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00031-CV

In re Michael McPhee

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM SAN SABA COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus and motion to stay are denied. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Filed: January 23, 2024
1

Filed 10/6/20 P. v. Barajas CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH TELEVERA BARAJAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

C091695

(Super. Ct. No. 19FE000822)

While defendant Joseph Televera Barajas was incarcerated, he knowingly and 

unlawfully possessed methamphetamine in a usable amount. Defendant was charged 

with possession of methamphetamine in prison. (Pen. Code,1 § 4573.6.) It was further 

alleged that defendant had two prior strike convictions. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the prosecutor amended the complaint to charge the lesserrelated offense of violation of section 4573.8. Defendant pled no contest to the charge as 

amended and admitted one prior strike conviction. The second prior strike conviction 

was stricken. 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to this code.
2

The trial court imposed the low term of 16 months, doubled to two years eight 

months for the prior strike conviction. The court ordered defendant to pay a conviction 

assessment fee of $30 (Gov. Code, § 70373), a court operations assessment fee of $40 

(§ 1465.8), and a restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), with an additional $300

parole revocation fine, which was stayed pending successful completion of parole 

(§ 1202.45). No custody credits were awarded because defendant was incarcerated on 

another sentence. 

Defendant filed a notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable 

cause. 

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to 

review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People 

v. Wende (1969) 25 Cal.3d at p. 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to 

file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More 

than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having 

undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable 

error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we 

affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ 

Robie, J.

We concur:

/s/ 

Blease, Acting P. J.

/s/ 

Murray, J.
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 91 Referred in House (RFH)]







110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 91


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 20, 2008

              Referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
   Honoring Army Specialist Monica L. Brown, of Lake Jackson, Texas, 
  extending gratitude to her and her family, and pledging continuing 
    support for the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

Whereas Monica Brown, a medic serving in the 782nd Brigade Support Battalion, 
        4th Brigade Combat Team, was deployed to Afghanistan in support of 
        Operation Enduring Freedom;
Whereas members of the United States Armed Forces were attacked by a roadside 
        bomb in the eastern Paktia province in Afghanistan on April 25, 2007;
Whereas Specialist Monica L. Brown, at age 19, ran through insurgent gunfire to 
        save the lives of fellow wounded soldiers injured after the roadside 
        bomb tore through their convoy of humvees;
Whereas Monica Brown is 1 of 25,109 women currently serving in the Armed Forces 
        in Afghanistan and Iraq, and 1 of 350,000 women serving in the United 
        States Army;
Whereas Monica Brown is the first woman in Afghanistan and only the second 
        female member of the Armed Forces since World War II to receive the 
        Silver Star, the Nation's third-highest medal for valor; and
Whereas the thoughts and prayers of Congress and the people of the United States 
        remain with the families of all the members of the Armed Forces who are 
        fighting to ensure the Nation's freedom and safety: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) honors Monica L. Brown, a Specialist in the United 
        States Army, who risked her life to save the lives of her 
        fellow wounded soldiers while serving in the Global War on 
        Terror in Afghanistan, and recognizes her for her bravery and 
        heroism;
            (2) extends its deepest gratitude to Monica L. Brown and 
        her family in Lake Jackson, Texas; and
            (3) pledges its continued support for the men and women of 
        the United States Armed Forces.

            Passed the Senate June 18, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.`
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6353** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. COREY ANTOINE TABOR , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:03

- cr - 00012

- RLV

- CH

- 5; 5:12

- cv - 00172

- RLV )

Submitted : June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD , DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Corey Antoine Tabor, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Rebecca Taylor Menerney, Kenneth Michel Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Corey Antoine Tabor seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion and his motion for reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a subs tantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrat e both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tabor has not made t he requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 the Interior

###### National Park Service

Department of Interior agenda for the June 21, 2000 public meeting of the Advisory Commission for the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, Golden Gate Club in the Presidio 10:00 AM-12:15 PM.

10 AM Welcome—Neil Chaitin, Chairman, 

Opening Remarks—Neil Chaitin, Chairman, 

Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting 

10:15 AM Report of the Superintendent— William Thomas, Superintendent 

10:30 AM New Collection Storage Space Initiatives— Tom Mulhern, Collections Manager 

10:45 AM Staff Reports 

11:45 AM Public Comments and Questions 

12 PM Election of Officers 

12:15 PM Agenda Items/Date for Next Meeting.

William G. Thomas, 

Superintendent. 

[FR Doc. 00-12316 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RIVER MASCARI,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00281

- CR

Appeal from

210th District Court

of El Paso Co unty, Texas

(TC # 20120D0 6125 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We

further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### LOUIS LEEKER et al., Appellants, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

February 6, 1912.

The opinion of the Springfield Court of Appeals in this case (154 Mo. App. 440) is adopted as the opinion of the court.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.— *Hon. George H. Williams,*Judge.

Aeeermed.

*James J. O’Donohue*for appellants.

*Fordyce, Holliday & White*for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal in this case was prosecuted to this court, but was thereafter transferred by it to the Springfield Court of Appeals under the provisions of the act of the Legislature, approved June 12, 1909. [See Laws of Missouri, 1909', p. 396; see, also, sec. 3939', R. S. 1909:] In due time the cause was disposed of by the Springfield Court of Appeals through an opinion prepared by Judge Nikon of that court, as will appear by reference to Leeker v. Insurance Company, 154 Mo. App. 440, 134 S. W. 676. Subsequently, the Supreme Court declared the said *524legislative act, which purported to authorize the transfer of cases from this court to the Springfield Court, to be unconstitutional. The cause was thereafter transferred by the Springfield Court of Appeals to this court on the theory that the jurisdiction of the appeal continued to reside here and the proceedings had in the Springfield Court with reference thereto were *cora/m non judice.*

The case has been argued and submitted here and duly considered. Upon reading the record and considering the arguments, we aré persuaded that the opinion of the Springfield Court, above referred to, properly disposes of the controversy, and it is adopted as the opinion of this court. For the reason given in that opinion the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

All concur.
§ 4208.2 Definitions. The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: employer, ERISA, IRS, Multiemployer Act, multiemployer plan, PBGC, plan, and plan year. In addition, for purposes of this part: *Complete withdrawal* means a complete withdrawal as described in section 4203 of ERISA.
*Eligible employer* means the employer, as defined in section 4001(b) of ERISA, as it existed on the date of its initial partial or complete withdrawal, as applicable. An eligible employer shall continue to be an eligible employer notwithstanding the occurrence of any of the following events: ( 1 ) A restoration involving a mere change in identity, form or place of organization, however effected;
( 2 ) A reorganization involving a liquidation into a parent corporation;
( 3 ) A merger, consolidation or division solely between (or among) trades or businesses (whether or not incorporated) of the employer; or
( 4 ) An acquisition by or of, or a merger or combination with another trade or business.
*Partial withdrawal* means a partial withdrawal as described in section 4205 of ERISA.
*Partial withdrawal year* means the third year of the 3-year testing period in the case of a partial withdrawal caused by a 70-percent contribution decline, or the year of the partial cessation in the case of a partial withdrawal caused by a partial cessation of the employer's contribution obligation.
#### KANIMAYA v. CHOCTAW LBR. CO. et al.

No. 19352.

Opinion Filed Sept. 9, 1930.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1931.

FOSTER, C.

This cause involves an identical state of facts as in case No. 19350, this day decided, 147 Okla. 90, 294 Pae. 817. The only difference in the two c'auses is that a different tract of land is involved in the instant case than in case No. 19350.

For the reasons set forth in the case of James Kanimaya v. Choctaw Lumber Co., No. 19350, this day decided, the judgment in the instant case is hereby affirmed.

TEEHEE, REID, LEACH, and EAGLE-TON. Commissioners, concur.

By the Court:

It is so ordered.