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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5440 

To amend the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 to 

provide that the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and 

consent of the Senate, the Chief of the Forest Service. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 5, 2024 

Mr. LEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Department of Agriculture Reorganization 

Act of 1994 to provide that the President shall appoint, 

by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, the 

Chief of the Forest Service. 

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 ‘‘Forest Service Ac5 countability Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5440 IS

1 SEC. 2. CHIEF OF THE FOREST SERVICE. 

2 Subtitle E of the Department of Agriculture Reorga3 nization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6961) is amended by add4 ing at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 246. CHIEF OF THE FOREST SERVICE. 

6 ‘‘(a) APPOINTMENT BY THE PRESIDENT; SENATE

7 ADVICE AND CONSENT.—The President shall appoint, by 

8 and with the advice and consent of the Senate, the Chief 

9 of the Forest Service. 

10 ‘‘(b) QUALIFICATIONS.—An individual appointed 

11 under subsection (a) shall have substantial experience and 

12 demonstrated competence in forest and natural resources 

13 management. 

14 ‘‘(c) COMMITTEE REFERRAL.— 

15 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any nomination of an indi16 vidual to be the Chief of the Forest Service sub17 mitted to the Senate for confirmation, and referred 

18 to a committee, shall be referred jointly to the Com19 mittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 

20 the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Nat21 ural Resources of the Senate. 

22 ‘‘(2) RULES OF SENATE.—Paragraph (1) is en23 acted— 

24 ‘‘(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking 

25 power of the Senate, and as such is deemed a 

26 part of the rules of the Senate and supersedes 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 5440 IS

1 other rules only to the extent that they are in2 consistent with such rules; and 

3 ‘‘(B) with full recognition of the constitu4 tional right of the Senate to change the rules 

5 at any time, in the same manner, and to the 

6 same extent as in the case of any other rule of 

7 the Senate. 

8 ‘‘(d) APPLICATION TO INCUMBENT.—Notwith9 standing any service by an individual serving in the posi10 tion of Chief of the Forest Service on the date of enact11 ment of this section, the President shall submit to the Sen12 ate a nomination for an individual to be the Chief of the 

13 Forest Service not later than 30 days after that date of 

14 enactment.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### § 1202.26 Who will make sure that my record is accurate?

The system manager ensures that all records used by NARA to make a determination about any individual are maintained with such accuracy, relevancy, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably possible to ensure fairness to you.
Submitted on briefs without argument,

decided July 26, 1910.

#### HOWELL *v.*WHEELER.

[109 Pac. 865.]

Appeal and Error — Record—Evidence.

The sufficiency of the evidence to justify the decree will not be considered, where the testimony is not in the record.

From Coos: James W. Hamilton, Judge.

This is a suit by William Howell against Edgar L. Wheeler, and Luella Wheeler, his wife, Prosper Mill Company, a corporation, William Hicking, W. S. McFarland, and Cora B. McFarland, his wife, W. B. Mavity, Annia A. Mundy, Clarence Y. Lowe, Sarah A. Fahy, Francis J. Fahy, G. B. Cox, sometimes known as Glenn Cox, and Bank of Bandon, a corporation, to reform a certain deed set forth in the complaint, so that the same would show that the timber on the lands described in said deed were excepted and reserved therefrom, and that the plaintiff, William Howell, had one year from the date of said deed in which to remove said timber. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

For appellants there was a brief over the name of *Mr. Austin S. Hammond.*

For respondent there was a brief over the name of *Mr. Joseph W. Bennett.*

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court adjudging that plaintiff is the owner of the standing timber on 160 acres of land, situated in Coos County, Oregon.

The only question raised by the assignments of error is as to whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the decree. The testimony in the case is not in the record before us, and we have no alternative but to affirm the decree.

The decree is affirmed. Affirmed.
# EUR-Lex - 12004V205 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V205

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER III — POLICIES IN OTHER AREAS - Section 1 — Employment - Article III-205 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0091 - 0091 *

Article III-205

1. The Union shall contribute to a high level of employment by encouraging cooperation between Member States and by supporting and, if necessary, complementing their action. In doing so, the competences of the Member States shall be respected.

2. The objective of a high level of employment shall be taken into consideration in the formulation and implementation of Union policies and activities.

--------------------------------------------------
#### § 1005.3 Business operations.

Engaging in or soliciting any business in the area administered by the Presidio Trust, except in accordance with the provisions of a permit, contract, or other written agreement with the United States, is prohibited.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 15, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50870

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN R. GUERRERO, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:91-CR-318-1

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin R. Guerrero, Jr., federal prisoner # 43281-080,

appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for

modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A),

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, or, in the alternative, a writ of

coram nobis. He argues that the district court erred in denying

relief on his claims that (1) he is entitled to release, pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), based on his heart condition, and

(2) his sentence is illegal because it was based on facts not

submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt in
No. 04-50870

-2-

violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) and

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 755-56 (2005). 

Guerrero does not argue that he has an illness from which he

will die within one year or that his medical condition has

rendered him unable to provide self-care. Thus, he has not shown

that the Bureau of Prisons abused its discretion in applying its

interpretive rule restricting the application of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) to inmates who have been diagnosed with

medical conditions that are terminal within one year or who

suffer from severely debilitating and irreversible conditions

that render them unable to provide self-care. This claim is

without merit.

Because Guerrero’s Blakely/Booker argument seeks to

challenge alleged sentencing errors, a § 2255 motion was the

appropriate vehicle in which to raise the claims absent a showing

that the remedy provided under § 2255 was inadequate or

ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See Padilla

v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425-26 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Guerrero’s claims do not fall within this exception, otherwise

known as § 2255's “savings clause” because Booker is not

retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Padilla,

416 F.3d at 427. Thus, his sentencing challenge is not

cognizable in a § 2241 petition. Id. The district court did not

err in denying Guerrero’s § 2241 petition.

Guerrero’s motion to “Include Information” is treated as a

motion to file a supplemental brief and is DENIED.
No. 04-50870

-3-

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
# EUR-Lex - 12002E194 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E194

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Five: Institutions of the Community - Title I: Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1: The institutions - Section 1: The European Parliament - Article 194 - Article 138d - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0115 - 0115 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0262 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0056 - Consolidated version *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Five: Institutions of the Community

Title I: Provisions governing the institutions

Chapter 1: The institutions

Section 1: The European Parliament

Article 194

Article 138d - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 194

Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have the right to address, individually or in association with other citizens or persons, a petition to the European Parliament on a matter which comes within the Community's fields of activity and which affects him, her or it directly.
Case 16-26384 Doc 31 Filed 12/15/17 Entered 12/15/17 15:52:45 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 10
Case 16-26384 Doc 31 Filed 12/15/17 Entered 12/15/17 15:52:45 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 10
Case 16-26384 Doc 31 Filed 12/15/17 Entered 12/15/17 15:52:45 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 10
Case 16-26384 Doc 31 Filed 12/15/17 Entered 12/15/17 15:52:45 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 10
Case 16-26384 Doc 31 Filed 12/15/17 Entered 12/15/17 15:52:45 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 10
Case 16-26384 Doc 31 Filed 12/15/17 Entered 12/15/17 15:52:45 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 10
Case 16-26384 Doc 31 Filed 12/15/17 Entered 12/15/17 15:52:45 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 10
Case 16-26384 Doc 31 Filed 12/15/17 Entered 12/15/17 15:52:45 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 10
Case 16-26384 Doc 31 Filed 12/15/17 Entered 12/15/17 15:52:45 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 10
Case 16-26384 Doc 31 Filed 12/15/17 Entered 12/15/17 15:52:45 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 10
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.416 Restrictions on sale/purchase. ( a ) Spiny lobster harvested in or from the EEZ or adjoining state waters by a vessel that has a valid Federal commercial vessel permit for spiny lobster, as required under § 622.400(a)(1), or a valid Federal tail-separation permit for spiny lobster, as required under § 622.400(a)(2), may be sold or transferred only to a dealer who has a valid Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit, as required under § 622.400(a)(5).
( b ) Spiny lobster harvested in or from the EEZ may be first received by a dealer who has a valid Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit, as required under § 622.400(a)(5), only from a vessel that has a valid Federal commercial vessel permit for spiny lobster or a valid Federal tail-separation permit for spiny lobster.
[79 FR 19497, Apr. 9, 2014]
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: DYLAN REEVES, ) Case No. 13-21976

)

Debtor, ) Chapter 13

)

DYLAN REEVES, ) Adv. Pro. No. 16-00523

)

Plaintiff, ) Honorable Janet S. Baer

) Judge Presiding

v. )

)

KONDAUR CAPITAL CORP., )

)

Defendant. )

)

KONDAUR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant, Kondaur Capital Corp. (“Kondaur”), by its counsel and pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7056 moves for

summary judgment in its favor as to the adversary complaint [Doc. 1] (“Adversary Complaint”)

filed by Plaintiff, Dylan Reeves (“Plaintiff”), and in support thereof, states as follows:

1. Summary judgment is appropriate in favor of Kondaur and against the Plaintiff as

to the Adversary Complaint because there is no genuine issue of fact and as a matter of law,

Plaintiff’s claim in his Adversary Complaint that Kondaur’s lien on the real property commonly

known as 9808 S. Normal, Chicago, Illinois is avoidable is without merit.

2. For these reasons, as further demonstrated in Kondaur’s concurrently filed

memorandum of law and its statement of material facts in support of its motion, the Court should

grant summary judgment in Kondaur’s favor as to the Adversary Complaint filed by Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Kondaur respectfully requests that this court grant its Motion for

Case 16-00523 Doc 22 Filed 12/22/16 Entered 12/22/16 10:56:44 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

Summary Judgment, and provide such further and additional relief as the Court determines is

necessary and appropriate.

Dated: December 22, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

Ralph T. Wutscher KONDAUR CAPITAL CORP.

Coleman J. Braun

Allan Z. Enriquez

MAURICE WUTSCHER LLP

105 W. Madison Street, 18th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Tel. (312) 416-6170 By: /s/ Coleman J. Braun

Fax. (312) 284-4751 One of Its Attorneys

Certificate of Service

Coleman J. Braun, an attorney, certifies that on December 22, 2016, he caused the

service of a true and correct copy of the foregoing document and any referenced exhibits via

ECF on all parties who are Filing Users.

/s/ Coleman J. Braun

Case 16-00523 Doc 22 Filed 12/22/16 Entered 12/22/16 10:56:44 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 622

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

#### § 622.17 Notice regarding seasonal/area closures to protect Gulf reef fish.

See § 622.34, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) through (6), regarding Gulf reef fish protective restrictions in the Gulf EEZ that apply broadly to multiple Gulf fisheries and gear types.
#### § 665.221 Definitions.

As used in §§ 665.220 through 665.239, *Hawaii coral reef ecosystem component species (Hawaii coral reef ECS)* means those species identified as ECS in the Hawaii FEP and are not defined as MUS or another ECS in this subpart.

[84 FR 2772, Feb. 8, 2019]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58470-58471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8437]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of The Secretary


List of Countries Requiring Cooperation With an International 
Boycott

    In order to comply with the mandate of section 999(a)(3) of the 
Internal

[[Page 58471]]

Revenue Code of 19086, the Department of the Treasury is publishing a 
current list of countries which require or may require participation 
in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning 
of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
    On the basis of the best information currently available to the 
Department of the Treasury, the following countries require or may 
require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott 
(within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986).
    Kuwait.
    Lebanon.
    Libya.
    Qatar.
    Saudi Arabia.
    Syria.
    United Arab Emirates.
    Yemen, Republic of.
    Iraq is not included in this list, but its status with respect to 
future lists remains under review by the Department of the Treasury.

    Dated: September 26, 2006.
Harry J. Hicks III,
International Tax Counsel (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 06-8437 Filed 10-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4870-25-M
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 28, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00295

- CR

Gary Lee AVANT

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 186th J udicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR5555

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due September 9, 2015 , but it was not filed. This court notified appellant’s counsel, William L. Baskette , of the deficiency by letter on September 14, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2). Our letter advised counsel that this appeal would be abated for an abandonment hearing if he failed to timely respond.

Baskette has not filed appellant’s brief or otherwise responded to our letter. Pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we abate this appeal, remand the case to the trial court, and order the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine:

(1) whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, and

(2) whether counsel has abandon ed the appeal. The trial court must take steps to ensure effective assistance of counsel, including the appointment of new counsel if necessary. Because sanctions may be necessary, the trial court should make a finding as to whether

William L. Baskette ab andoned the appeal even if new counsel is retained or substituted.

The trial court may, in its discretion, receive evidence on the first issue by sworn affidavit from the appellant. The trial court shall, however, order appellant’s counsel to be present at the hearing.

The trial court is further ordered to make written findings and conclusions on these issues. The clerk and court reporter are ordered to file in this court, no later than October 28,

2015 , (1) a reporter’s record of the hearing, and (2) a supplemental clerk’s record containing thecourt’s written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations addressing the above

issues. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 28th day of September, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# EUR-Lex - 12006M023 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006M023

**Treaty on European Union (consolidated version) - Title V - Provisions on a common foreign and security policy - Article 23 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0019 - 0020 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0018 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0160 - Consolidated version *

Article 23 [2]

1. Decisions under this title shall be taken by the Council acting unanimously. Abstentions by members present in person or represented shall not prevent the adoption of such decisions.

When abstaining in a vote, any member of the Council may qualify its abstention by making a formal declaration under the present subparagraph. In that case, it shall not be obliged to apply the decision, but shall accept that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other Member States shall respect its position. If the members of the Council qualifying their abstention in this way represent more than one third of the votes weighted in accordance with Article 205(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the decision shall not be adopted.

2. By derogation from the provisions of paragraph 1, the Council shall act by qualified majority:

- when adopting joint actions, common positions or taking any other decision on the basis of a common strategy,

- when adopting any decision implementing a joint action or a common position,

- when appointing a special representative in accordance with Article 18(5).

If a member of the Council declares that, for important and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken. The Council may, acting by a qualified majority, request that the matter be referred to the European Council for decision by unanimity.

The votes of the members of the Council shall be weighted in accordance with Article 205(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. For their adoption, decisions shall require at least 232 votes in favour cast by at least two thirds of the members. When a decision is to be adopted by the Council by a qualified majority, a member of the Council may request verification that the Member States constituting the qualified majority represent at least 62% of the total population of the Union. If that condition is shown not to have been met, the decision in question shall not be adopted.

This paragraph shall not apply to decisions having military or defence implications.

3. For procedural questions, the Council shall act by a majority of its members.

[2] Article amended by the 2003 Act of Accession. See Appendix at the end of this publication.

--------------------------------------------------
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )

Upshur County Republican Executive 

Committee

)

)

)

AO 2023-07

Agenda Document No. 23-26-A

CERTIFICATION

I, Vicktoria J. Allen, recording secretary for the Federal Election Commission open 

meeting on November 16, 2023, do hereby certify that the Commission decided by a vote of 6-0 

to approve Agenda Document No. 23-26-A, which is draft A.

Commissioners Broussard, Cooksey, Dickerson, Lindenbaum, Trainor, and Weintraub 

voted affirmatively for the decision.

Attest:

 November 16, 2023

Date Vicktoria J. Allen

Deputy Secretary of the Commission