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

[House Report 106-14]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
  1st Session           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 106-14

=======================================================================

 
  PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 436, THE GOVERNMENT WASTE, 
                 FRAUD AND ERROR REDUCTION ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

  February 9, 1999.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 43]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 43, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

               BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 436, 
the ``Government Waste, Fraud and Error Reduction Act of 1999'' 
under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general 
debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Government Reform.
    The rule waives section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act 
(prohibiting consideration of legislation providing new budget 
authority or contract authority for a fiscal year until the 
budget resolution for that fiscal year has been agreed to) 
against the consideration of the bill. The rule also provides 
that the bill will be considered as read.
    Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the 
Congressional Record prior to their consideration will be given 
priority in recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise 
consistent with House rules. The rule allows for the Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during 
consideration of the bill, and to reduce votes to five minutes 
on a postponed question if the vote follows a fifteen minute 
vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, 
with or without instruction.
    The waiver of section 303 of the Budget Act is necessary 
because there is no FY 1999 budget resolution and Budget 
Committee Chairman Kasich has not yet published in the 
Congressional Record budget allocations pursuant to House 
Resolution 5.

                                

```
No. 11-8989.

#### Jain *v.*Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
Searched for **https://www.federalregister.gov/blog/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.federalregister.gov/blog/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6289

WAYNE ANTHONY RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD LANHAM, SR., Commissioner; RONALD

MOATS, Warden; JOSEPH P. SACCHET, Warden; T.

TUCKER, Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-2261-CCB)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Anthony Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn William Bell,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Anthony Richardson appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Richardson v. Lanham, No. CA-97-2261-CCB (D.

Md. Jan. 29, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 10(vi)
                                 AMENDMENT TO
                      LIFE INSURANCE SPLIT-DOLLAR AGREEMENT


     AGREEMENT by and between AMERICAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES INC., a Delaware
corporation with its principal office at 2777 Walden Avenue, Buffalo, New York
14225 (the "Company"), and KURT WIEDENHAUPT ("Executive"), residing at 280
Carnoustie Road, East Aurora, New York 14052, dated as of July 1, 1994.


                               W I T N E S S E T H
                               - - - - - - - - - - 

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive enter into an agreement entitled
the Life Insurance Split-Dollar Agreement, dated as of August 26, 1992; and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has authorized the following
amendment to the Life Insurance Split-Dollar Agreement, and the Executive has
agreed to the amendment

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Life Insurance Split-Dollar Agreement is amended as 
follows, effective July 1, 1994:

     1. Paragraph 3 of the Life Insurance Split-Dollar Agreement is amended to
read as follows:


     3. PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS. On or before the due date of each annual premium on
the Policy, or within the grace period allowed by the Policy or the Insurer for
the payment of such annual premium, and for so long as the Executive is employed
by the Company before attaining the age of 65, the Company shall pay a portion
of the annual premium on the Policy. The portion of each such annual premium to
be paid by the Company shall be determined by the Company in its discretion 
from year to year. The Executive shall pay the balance of each such annual 
premium, on or before its due date or within the grace period allowed by the 
Policy or the Insurer for the payment of such annual premium.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive had executed this Agreement, and the 
Company pursuant to the authorization of its Board of Directors, has caused this
Agreement to be executed, as of the day and year first above written.



                   AMERICAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES INC.



                   By /s/ John M. Murray
                     -----------------------------------------------
                            John M. Murray,
                            Vice President - Finance and Treasurer



                   By /s/ James J. Tanous
                     -----------------------------------------------
                            James J. Tanous, Secretary



                   /s/ Kurt Wiedenhaupt
                   -------------------------------------------------
                   Kurt Wiedenhaupt, individually
§ 302-11.406 How must we administer an employee's claim? To administer an employee's claim: ( a ) You must: ( 1 ) Review the employee's claim to determine whether the expenses claimed are reasonable in amount and customarily paid by the buyer/seller in the locality where the property is located;
( 2 ) Disallow any portion of the employee's claim that is inflated or are higher than normal for similar services in the locality;
( 3 ) Execute final administrative approval of payment of a claim by an appropriate agency approving official; and
( 4 ) Return disapproved applications to the employee with a memorandum of explanation.
( b ) The approving official must determine if: ( 1 ) The aggregate amount of expenses claimed in connection with a sale or purchase of a residence is within the prescribed limitation for either;
( 2 ) All conditions and requirements under which allowances may be paid have been met; and
( 3 ) The expenses themselves are those which are reimbursable.
Note to § 302-11.406 :
You must not pay the expenses listed in § 302-11.202 or § 302-11.304.
#### § 302-2.18 What happens if I fail to sign a service agreement?

If you fail to sign a service agreement, your agency will not pay for your relocation expenses.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2014-01, 79 FR 49644, Aug. 21, 2014]
46508.

#### EASTERWOOD v. THE STATE.

(377 SE2d 857)

Hunt, Justice.

Dumah Easterwood was convicted of the murders of Randy Webb and Gary McAdams and received two consecutive life sentences.1 He appeals, raising several enumerations of error, including the trial court’s restriction of his opening argument.

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, shows the following. Randy Webb and Gary McAdams drove to *165the defendant’s home after learning the defendant had beaten Webb’s mother, the defendant’s wife. McAdams drove, and Webb, a paraplegic, was in the passenger’s seat. When the victims arrived, they got in an argument with the defendant who threatened to kill them. The defendant retrieved a pistol from inside his house, returned outside, and shot McAdams, who was standing unarmed by the driver’s door of the car pleading with the defendant to spare his life. The defendant then shot Webb, who had also begged for his life, and who had pleaded with the defendant to “call the law.” The victims died as a result of the gunshot wounds inflicted by the defendant.

Decided April 6, 1989.

*Tisinger, Tisinger, Vance & Greer, Paul E. Weathington,*for appellant.

*William G. Hamrick, Jr., District Attorney, Peter John Skandalakis, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Andrew S. Ree,*for appellee.

1. This evidence was sufficient to support the conviction under the standard established in *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. The defendant contends the trial court improperly restricted his opening argument. During defendant’s opening argument, counsel for the state objected to references to specific acts of violence by the victim Webb against third parties. After the trial court heard argument outside the presence of the jury, defendant’s counsel agreed not to refer in opening argument to specific acts of violence on the part of Webb, or to Webb’s reputation for violence. Because counsel for the defendant agreed to proceed as requested by the state, there is no issue here for our review.

3. We find no merit to defendant’s remaining enumerations.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The crimes were committed on October 24, 1987. The defendant was indicted on January 11, 1988 by the Carroll County Grand Jury, tried on April 18 and 19, 1988 and convicted on April 19, 1988. His motion for new trial, filed May 18, 1988, was denied on September 14, 1988 and the appeal was docketed in this court on December 14, 1988. The appeal was submitted for decision without oral argument on January 27, 1989.
1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDOFRE DURIEL PARRA

- SALAS , Petitioner,

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III , United States Attorney General, Respondent

. No. 16

- 70226 Agency No. A098

- 386

- 006

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 18 , 2017 San Francisco, California Before: IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY , * * District Judge.
Edofre Duriel Parra

- Salas , a native and citizen of Mexico, petition s for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration J udge (IJ) denying Parra’s applic ations for withholding of removal

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

OCT 25 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) , 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16

- 1208.18

. Parra also petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand because of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C

. § 1252 and deny the petiti on.
1. Parra ’s briefing on appeal raise s no arguments in support of his CAT
claim

. He therefore has waived this claim. See United States v. Kama , 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005)

. 2. An applicant for withholding of removal must show that either the government or an entity that the government is unwilling or unable to control i s the source of his persecution. See Knezevic v. Ashcroft , 367 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Parra did not establish that the Mexican
government was unwilling or unable to protect him from persecution by drug cartel
members

. Parra waived review of this claim by failing to argue it in his opening
brief. See Martinez

- Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Ci r. 1996)

. E ven assuming that the issue was not waived , P arra has not met his burden of demonstrating that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
3. The BIA did not abuse its d iscretion by denying Parra ’ s motion to
remand

. The BIA did not unreasonabl y conclude that Parra failed to make the prima facie showing of “ legitimate and substantial ” ineffective assistance , Castillo

- Perez
v. INS , 212 F.3d 518, 526 (9th Cir. 2000), needed to excuse failure to comply with3 the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada , 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), aff’d , 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988 )

. Moreover, the evidence that Parra sought to introduce was not reasonably likely to affect the outcome of his withholding claim. 1 See Matter of Coehlo , 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992).

PETITION DENIED.

1 We GRANT Parra’s request to submit a transcript of argument ( Dkt. 42 , 44 ).
Exhibit 32.1

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Vanguard Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge (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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|/s/    ERIC G. WINTEMUTE                 
|Eric G. Wintemute Chief Executive Officer



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|/s/    DAVID T. JOHNSON                                                
|David T. Johnson Chief Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer

May 8, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to American Vanguard Corporation and will be retained by American Vanguard Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed
as part of the Form 10-Q.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4256

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend the land border

inspection fee program for the California southern border of the United

States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 19, 1994

Ms. SCHENK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend

the land border inspection fee program for the California

southern border of the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LAND BORDER INSPECTION

4 FEE PROGRAM FOR CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN

5 BORDER OF UNITED STATES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 286(q)(5)(A) of the Im7 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(q)(5)(A))

8 is amended—

9 (1) by inserting ‘‘(i)’’ after ‘‘(5)(A)’’; and
2

•HR 4256 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following new

2 clause:

3 ‘‘(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), the program author4 ized in this subsection is extended until September 30,

5 1996, with respect to—

6 ‘‘(I) the northern border of the United States

7 (as previously provided for by Public Law 103–121

8 (107 Stat. 1153, 1161)); and

9 ‘‘(II) the California southern border of the

10 United States.’’.

11 (b) QUARTERLY REPORT.—Section 286(q)(5)(C) of

12 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

13 1356(q)(5)(C)) is amended—

14 (1) by inserting ‘‘to the Congress’’ after ‘‘sub15 mit’’; and

16 (2) by striking ‘‘September 30, 1993’’ and in17 serting ‘‘September 30, 1996’’.

Æ
§ 0.383 Emergency Relocation Board, authority delegated. ( a ) During any period in which the Commission is unable to function because of the circumstances set forth in § 0.186(b), all work, business or functions of the Federal Communications Commission arising under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, is assigned and referred to the Emergency Relocation Board.
( b ) The Board, acting by a majority thereof, shall have the power and authority to hear and determine, order, certify, report or otherwise act as to any of the said work, business or functions so assigned or referred to it, and in respect thereof shall have all the jurisdiction and powers conferred by law upon the Commission, and be subject to the same duties and obligations.
( c ) Any order, decision or report made or other action taken by the said Board in respect of any matters so assigned or referred shall have the same effect and force, and may be made, evidenced, and enforced in the same manner, as if made or taken by the Commission.
[28 FR 12402, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 33 FR 8228, June 1, 1968; 53 FR 29055, Aug. 2, 1988]
#### § 302-9.5 What expenses may I be allowed for storage of a POV when on a permanent or temporary assignment?

There is no authority for non-emergency storage of a POV when on a permanent or temporary assignment; however, an agency may approve storage for a POV when an employee is assigned a temporary change of station in support of a contingency operation as defined in 10 U.S.C. 1482a(c)(2).

[FTR Amdt. 2011-06, 76 FR 71889, Nov. 21, 2011]
#### § 105-60.100 Public availability of information.

Records that FOIA in 5 U.S. Code section 552(a)(2) requires GSA to make available for public inspection in an electronic format can be accessed via GSA's website at *www.gsa.gov*. Additionally, the GSA FOIA Reading Room, and the FOIA Online System. GSA is responsible for determining which of its records shall be made publicly available, for identifying additional records of interest to the public that are appropriate for public disclosure, and for posting and indexing such records. These records shall be made available electronically via the GSA FOIA Reading Room. GSA shall ensure that its online FOIA Library of posted records and indices is reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. GSA maintains a FOIA Requester Service Center, the office that oversees FOIA requests for all of GSA, and a FOIA Public Liaison to assist individuals in locating records particular to an agency. A list of agency FOIA Public Liaisons is available at: *http://www.foia.gov/*.
New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP Revision 

January 14, 2011 

Contents: 

• NH Regional Haze SIP Cover Letter 01-14-11.pdf 

• NH Regional Haze SIP 01-14-11.pdf 

Attachment I – Comments from Federal Land Managers and EPA (with Responses) 

• EPA Letter 02-25-10.pdf 

• Response to EPA Comments 03-10-10.pdf 

• Env-A 2300 EPA Comments 11-22-10.pdf 

• Response to EPA Comments 12-09-10.pdf 

• NH Regional Haze SIP EPA Comments 12-20-10.pdf 

• Response to EPA Comments 01-14-11.pdf 

• NH Regional Haze SIP DOI-NPS Comments 12-20-10.pdf 

• Response to FLMs Comments 01-14-11.pdf 

Attachment J – Comments from Other Stakeholders 

• Env-A 2300 PSNH Comments 04-22-10.pdf 

• Env-A 2300 Sierra Club Comments 11-22-10.pdf 

• Response to Sierra Club Comments 01-14-11.pdf 

Attachment X – BART Analyses for Sources in New Hampshire 

• NH BART Analyses 01-14-11.pdf 

Attachment EE – Temporary Permit for PSNH Merrimack Station 

• PSNH MK Temp Permit (reissued) 08-02-10.pdf 

Attachment GG – Chapter Env-A 2300, Mitigation of Regional Haze 

• Env-A 2300 Evidence of Rule Adoption.pdf 

Attachment HH – Title V Operating Permit for PSNH Merrimack Station (Proposed) 

• PSNH MK Title V Permit (Proposed) 03-15-10.pdf 

Attachment II – Title V Operating Permit for PSNH Newington Station 

• PSNH NT Title V Permit (Final).pdf 

Attachment JJ – Public Notices for SIP Revision 

• Public Notice 11-19-10.pdf 

Attachment KK – Certification of Public Process 

• Certification of Public Process 01-11-11.pdf 

Attachment LL – Evidence of Legal Authority 

• Evidence of Legal Authority.pdf 

Note: Attachments and portions of attachments previously submitted are not 

included in this package.
039P16

#### State v. John David Watson

1. Defs Motion for Temporary Stay

1. Allowed 02/09/2016

2. Defs Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

*2.*
§ 60-300.69 Intimidation and interference. ( a ) The contractor shall not harass, intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual because the individual has engaged in or may engage in any of the following activities: ( 1 ) Filing a complaint;
( 2 ) Assisting or participating in any manner in an investigation, compliance evaluation, hearing, or any other activity related to the administration of the Act or any other Federal, state or local law requiring equal opportunity for protected veterans;
( 3 ) Opposing any act or practice made unlawful by the Act or this part or any other Federal, state or local law requiring equal opportunity for protected veterans, or
( 4 ) Exercising any other right protected by the Act or this part.
( b ) The contractor shall ensure that all persons under its control do not engage in such harassment, intimidation, threats, coercion or discrimination. The sanctions and penalties contained in this part may be exercised by the Director against any contractor who violates this obligation.
#### § 51-9.503 Effective date of new systems of records or alteration of an existing system of records.

Systems of records proposed to be established or altered in accordance with the provision of the subpart shall be effective no sooner than 30 days from the publication of notice required by § 51-9.502.
# Comments on: 18-1847: IN RE: NOBLE SYSTEMS CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential