alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3.45-1 Ninth district. ( a ) The District Office is in Cleveland Ohio.
( b ) The Ninth Coast Guard District comprise Michigan, New York north of latitude 42° N. and west of longitude 74°39′ W.; Pennsylvania north of latitude 41° and west of longitude 78°55′ W.; that part of Ohio and Indiana north of latitude 41° N.; that part of Illinois north of latitude 41° N. and east of longitude 90° W.; Wisconsin, except that part south of latitude 46°20′ N. and west of longitude 90° W.; and that part of Minnesota north of latitude 46°20′ N.
[CGFR 61-40, 26 FR 10350, Nov. 3, 1961, as amended by CGFR 71-85, 36 FR 16577, Aug. 24, 1971]
NUMBER 13-18-00147-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE OSCAR FUENTES, BELINDA FUENTES, ZACCHEAUS OLOBA, 

AND COMFORT OLOBA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

Relators’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Hinojosa

Per Curiam Order

Relators Oscar Fuentes, Belinda Fuentes, Zaccheaus Oloba, and Comfort Oloba

have filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief in the above 

cause on March 16, 2018. Relators contend that the Honorable Jack Pulcher, presiding 

judge of the 105th Judicial District Court of Kleberg County, Texas, abused his discretion, 

leaving relators without an adequate appellate remedy, by granting the real party in 

interest, Hunter Industries, Ltd.’s motion to transfer venue without affording relators notice 

and an opportunity to respond. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 86, 87.
2

Through this original proceeding, relators seek to vacate the trial court’s February 

26, 2018, order transferring venue from Kleberg County, Texas to Hays County, Texas. 

Through their motion for emergency relief, relators seek a temporary stay of the trial 

court’s order until such time as we may fully consider the petition for writ of mandamus.

The Court requests that the real party in interest, Hunter Industries, Ltd., or any 

others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to 

relators’ motion for emergency relief on or before March 20, 2018, and to file a response 

to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date 

of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

Relators’ motion for emergency relief will be CARRIED WITH THE CASE pending 

further order of the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed this 

16th day of March, 2018.
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5307

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study

on water optimization in the Burnt River basin, Malheur River basin,

Owyhee River basin, and Powder River basin, Oregon.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 2000

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a

feasibility study on water optimization in the Burnt River

basin, Malheur River basin, Owyhee River basin, and

Powder River basin, Oregon.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Burnt, Malheur,

5 Owyhee, and Powder River Basin Water Optimization

6 Feasibility Study Act of 2000’’.
2

•HR 5307 IH

1 SEC. 2. STUDY.

2 The Secretary of the Interior may conduct a feasi3 bility study on water optimization in the Burnt River

4 basin, Malheur River basin, Owyhee River basin, and Pow5 der River basin, Oregon.

6 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

7 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

8 as are necessary to carry out this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7458

CALVIN RUFFIN MALLORY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:09-cv-00466-JRS)

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 29, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Ruffin Mallory, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Calvin Ruffin Mallory seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his complaint without prejudice because he failed to comply with the district court’s October 4, 2002, order enjoining him from filing pleadings that do not comport with certain requirements, such as legibility and submission on the proper forms. Generally, a district court’s dismissal of a complaint without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that “a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of his complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case”) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “if the grounds of

the dismissal make clear that no amendment could cure the defects in the plaintiff's case, the order dismissing the complaint is final in fact and [appellate jurisdiction exists].”

Id . at 1066 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, Mallory may be able to save his action by amending his complaint to comply with the district court’s October 4, 2002, order. Therefore, the district court’s3 dismissal of Mallory’s complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not air the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 101-29.219 Index of Federal Specifications, Standards and Commercial Item Descriptions.

The *Index of Federal Specification, Standards and Commercial Item Descriptions* is a GSA publication that lists Federal specifications, qualified products lists, standards, and commercial item descriptions.
AO 399 (01/09) Waiver of the Service of Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To:

(Name of the plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint,

two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within

60 days from , the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the

United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date:

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Printed name of party waiving service of summons Printed name

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons

and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff located in

the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure.

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the plaintiff

and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been served.

 Southern District of Florida

EDWIN GARRISON, et al.

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.

1:22-cv-23753-KMM

Adam M. Moskowitz

12/27/2022

01/16/2023

Gisele Bundchen Jessica Stebbins Bina

Latham & Watkins LLP

10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1100

Los Angeles, CA 90067

jessica.stebbinsbina@lw.com

(424) 653-5525

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2023 Page 1 of 1
V

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5454

For the relief of Louise Ingrid Wallace.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 11, 2000

Mr. OWENS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Louise Ingrid Wallace.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR LOUISE

4 INGRID WALLACE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a)

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality

7 Act, Louise Ingrid Wallace shall be eligible for issuance

8 of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that

9 of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence

10 upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant

11 visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of

12 status to lawful permanent resident.
2

•HR 5454 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Louise Ingrid Wal2 lace enters the United States before the filing deadline

3 specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have

4 entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligi5 ble, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245

6 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of

7 the enactment of this Act.

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Louise Ingrid Wallace, the Secretary of State

16 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the

17 current or next following fiscal year, the total number of

18 immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the

19 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the

20 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the

21 total number of immigrant visas that are made available

22 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section

23 202(e) of such Act.

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural
3

•HR 5454 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Louise Ingrid Wallace

2 shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any

3 right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Na4 tionality Act.

Æ
#### § 3050.42 Proceedings to improve the quality of financial data.

The Commission may, on its own motion or on request of an interested party, initiate proceedings to improve the quality, accuracy, or completeness of Postal Service data required under § 3050.40 whenever it shall appear that the data have become significantly inaccurate or can be significantly improved; or those revisions are, in the judgment of the Commission, otherwise necessitated by the public interest.
Case 1:22-cr-20547-JEM   Document 109   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/09/2023   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:22-cr-20547-JEM   Document 109   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/09/2023   Page 2 of 2
#### § 101-26.501-7 Sale of vehicles.

GSA will not solicit trade-in bids when purchasing new motor vehicles for replacement purposes because experience has shown that suppliers (manufacturers) are unwilling to accept used vehicles in part payment for new ones. Accordingly, used vehicles that are being replaced will be disposed of by sale as set forth in Part 101-46.

[57 FR 47779, Oct. 20, 1992]
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0521 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-SW-010-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
§ 101-27.406 Disposition of stock. Stocks of slow-moving items which are not otherwise determined to be eligible for continued stockage shall be eliminated through normal attrition and shall not be replenished. The successive actions indicated in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, shall be taken, as necessary, to remove stocks of inactive items from inventory. ( a ) Transfer stock to other offices where needed within the agency.
( b ) Transfer stock to other agencies as follows: ( 1 ) Centrally managed items to the agency managing the item for credit; or
( 2 ) Agency program items to agencies requiring them.
( c ) Dispose of remaining stocks, as excess, after actions taken in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, in accordance with subpart 101-43.3.
Hillsborough

No. 7833

#### The State of New Hampshire v. Cleo R. Roy

January 16, 1978

*David H. Souter,*attorney general *(Edward A. Haffer,*assistant attorney general, orally), for the State.

*Charles E. Dibble,*of Contoocook, by brief and orally for the defendant.

*3Memorandum Opinion

On October 3, 1976, a juvenile petition was filed against the defendant alleging that he killed a police officer, an act which would have been a felony (first degree murder) if he had been an adult. The defendant, represented by counsel, waived a certification hearing in the Manchester District Court. This was done under an agreement that (1) he would waive indictment, and plead guilty to second degree murder, and (2) the State would recommend a sentence of life imprisonment, RSA 630:1-b, with the understanding that “the minimum eighteen years would be in effect and the normal parole eligibility . . . would apply.” The district court certified defendant to superior court on November 4, 1976, after considering the probation department’s report and all relevant information.

In the superior court, defendant waived indictment and was charged with second degree murder. The court, however, before plea, informed defendant that the sentence recommendation would not be accepted and that the court would not be bound by it. After consultation with his counsel and parents, defendant pleaded guilty. After personally addressing the defendant, the court accepted the plea and imposed a sentence of “fifty years to life.”

Thereafter, defendant obtained new counsel and moved to withdraw the certification, waiver of indictment, and plea of guilty. After hearing, the motion was denied and defendant’s exceptions were transferred by *King,*J.

The defendant was given an opportunity for a hearing on certification and the record does not compel a finding that his waiver of the hearing was anything but voluntary. The certification was made on evidence which furnished a sufficient basis for the order. The record also fully supports the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw the waiver of indictment and the guilty plea. If the record of what occurred at the entry of the plea was all we had to rely on, there might be difficulty in upholding its acceptance. *See State v. Allard,*116 N.H. 240, 356 A.2d 671 (1976) (Grimes, J., dissenting). However, defendant’s own testimony at the hearing on this motion reveals that he fully understood that the court would not impose a straight life sentence, that, before the plea, his counsel had explained to him the full range of penalties, and that he could get a greater sentence than he had bargained for. *See St. Pierre v. Vitek,*114 N.H. 766, 769-70, 330 A.2d 117, 119-20 (1974); *State v. Allard,*116 N.H. 240, 356 A.2d 671 (1976). The *4fact that he received more than he hoped for when he took his “chance” does not entitle him to withdraw his plea after finding out what the sentence was. The denial of the motion was proper.

*Exceptions overruled.*

Lampeón, J., did not sit.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10067 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Marco Antonio Lopez**

**- Lopez,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:19

- CR

- 91

- 1

Before **Davis, Elrod,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges

**. Per**  **Curiam :**  *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Marco Antonio Lopez

- Lopez 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). Lopez

- Lopez has not filed a response.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 28, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10067 Document: 00515880848 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2021No. 20

- 10067

2 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 issue for a ppellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5 th**  **C ir**  **. R.** 42. 2. However, w e note that , although Lopez

- Lopez was convicted and sentenced under 8 U.S.C

. § 1326(a) and (b)(1) , the w ritten judgment cites only to § 1326(a). Accordingly, we **REMAND** for correction of the clerical error in the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Cooper , 979 F.3d 1084, 1088

- 89 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied , 2021 WL 1073631 ( U.S. Mar. 22, 2021) ( No. 20

- 7122 ). Case: 20-10067 Document: 00515880848 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2021
§ 101-29.303 All Federal executive agencies. ( a ) Federal executive agencies shall evaluate the effectiveness of their Federal product descriptions by: ( 1 ) Establishing a system for obtaining user critiques of products acquired using those descriptions; and
( 2 ) Establish a method whereby the preparing activity can locate and communicate with the users.
( b ) The system shall encourage users to communicate with acquisition organizations regarding: ( 1 ) The user's essential requirements;
( 2 ) Product suitability for use in the user's environment;
( 3 ) Product failures and deficiencies;
( 4 ) The needs of the logistics system; and
( 5 ) Suggestions for corrective actions.
( c ) Acquisition organizations shall designate a central point in each agency to evaluate and respond to user critiques and take corrective action on reasonable complaints and suggestions.
( d ) At the time of the periodic review, the responsible preparing activity shall consider available user evaluations, the results of market research and analysis, and all reported deviations from the product description. Information, such as the following shall be examined in the review process: ( 1 ) Whether the product description is still needed in its present form and scope or whether a more simplified one can be used;
( 2 ) The existence of voluntary standards or other Government product descriptions that may better reflect current requirements;
( 3 ) The need to convert Federal and agency specifications covering commercial or commercial-type products to CID's; and
( 4 ) The currency and applicability of reference documents included in the product description.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

135438 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. ROBERT J. MCMAHON, ARLA J. Stephen J. Markman, MCMAHON, and PATRICK MCMAHON, Justices a/k/a PATRICK K. MCMAHON, a/k/a PATRICK KENNETH MCMAHON,Plaintiffs/Counter-DefendantsAppellees,

v SC: 135438 COA: 270477 Lenawee CC: 02-002641-CH CHARLES E. MCMAHON, a/k/a CHARLES MCMAHON, a/k/a CHARLES EDWIN MCMAHON, and MARIA A. MCMAHON, a/k/a MARIA MCMAHON, a/k/a MARIA ANNE MCMAHON,Defendants/Counter-PlaintiffsAppellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 6, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0317 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
§ 761.5 Withdrawal of Postal Service securities. ( a ) A depositor of book-entry Postal Service securities may withdraw them from a Reserve Bank by requesting delivery of like definitive Postal Service securities to itself or on its order to a transferee.
( b ) Postal Service securities which are actually to be delivered upon withdrawal may be issued either in registered or in bearer form.