alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-11148 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOE GARY RIVAS, JR., Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:02-CR-42-1
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Joe Gary Riva s , J r ., 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). Rivas has filed a response. The record is insufficiently dev e l o ped to allow

c o n sideration at this time of Rivas’s claim of ineffective assistance of cou n s e l ; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary3, 201 3 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-11148 Document: 00512099500 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2013No. 11-11148

the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant p ortions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rivas’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-11148 Document: 00512099500 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2013
§ 1122.5 Procedural rules. ( a ) After notifying the party subject to Preliminary Fact-Finding that Preliminary Fact-Finding has commenced, the Board staff shall, within a reasonable period of time, either: ( 1 ) Conclude Preliminary Fact-Finding and notify any parties involved that the process has been terminated; or
( 2 ) Recommend to the Board that a Board-Initiated Investigation is warranted.
( b ) Not later than 30 days after commencing a Board-Initiated Investigation, the Investigating Officer(s) shall provide the parties under investigation a copy of the Order of Investigation. If the Board adds or removes Investigating Officer(s) during the course of the Board-Initiated Investigation, it shall provide written notification to the parties under investigation.
( c ) Not later than 275 days after issuance of the Order of Investigation, the Investigating Officer(s) shall submit to the Board and the parties under investigation: ( 1 ) Any recommendations made as a result of the Board-Initiated Investigation; and
( 2 ) A summary of the findings that support such recommendations.
( d ) Not later than 90 days after receiving the recommendations and summary of findings, the Board shall decide whether to dismiss the Board-Initiated Investigation if no further action is warranted or initiate a Formal Board Proceeding to determine whether any provision of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV, Part A, has been violated in accordance with section 12 of the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015. The Board shall dismiss any Board-Initiated Investigation that is not concluded with administrative finality within one year after the date on which it was commenced.
( e ) A Formal Board Proceeding commences upon issuance of a public Order to Show Cause. The Order to Show Cause shall state the basis for, and the issues to be considered during, the Formal Board Proceeding and set forth a procedural schedule.
§ 178.33-7 Wall thickness. ( a ) The minimum wall thickness for any container shall be 0.007 inch.
( b ) [Reserved]
[Order 71, 31 FR 9074, July 1, 1966. Redesignated at 32 FR 5606, Apr. 5, 1967]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending October 12, 2013

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from United
Investors Income Properties 1998 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000830056
<NAME> UNITED INVESTORS INCOME PROPERTIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             928
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          12,513
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,806
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,944
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,886
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       566
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     9.17<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Ezra W. Acer, *Appellant, v.*Levi Hotchkiss, *Respondent, Impleaded, etc.*

Judgment affirmed with costs, with leave to either party to modify the same as suggested in the opinion. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.;

Haight, J., not sitting.
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending October 20, 2012

----

Advisory Councils            Community Depository Institutions Advisory Council -- announcement of members and designation of Charles H. Majors as president and Drake Mills as vice president for 2013.            -Announced, October 18, 2012            Bank Holding Companies            River Valley Bancorp, Madison, Indiana -- to acquire Dupont State Bank, Dupont, and to become a bank holding company (FRB Order No. 2012-10).            -Approved, October 17, 2012            Board Operations and Personnel            Official Staff Restructuring -- (1) establishment of the Office of the Chief Operating Officer and of the Division of Financial Management; (2) appointment of Don Hammond as chief operating officer; and (3) appointment of Michell Clark as director of the Management Division, Dave Harmon as acting deputy director of the Management Division, and Bill Mitchell as director of the Division of Financial Management.            -Approved, October 15, 2012            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Comments received during public comment period ofa Direct Final Rule: Air Plan Approval: AK; Permitting Fees Revision Proposed Rule, 81 FR 85203 [Direct Final] Rule, 81 FR 85160 FROM: Randall Ruddick, Air Quality Planner THRU: Debra Suzuki, Air Programs Unit Manager TO: Docket File DATE: January 03, 2017

The State ofAlaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) submitted revisions to their permitting fees provisions on February 1, 2016. The EPAtook directfinal action to approve the revisions into theirState Implementation Plan (SIP) as complying with Clean AirAct (CAA) 110(a)(2)(L). [81 FR 85160]. In the accompanying proposal [81 FR 85203] EPA stated that the EPAwas approving Alaska’s SIP revision as a directfinal rule (DFR) without prior proposal because we viewed it as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipated no adverse comments. We furtherstated that ifthe EPA received no adverse comments, the EPAwould not take further action on this proposed rule and that the final action would become effective in 60 days (on January 24, 2017). https://www.regulations.govfdocket?D=EPA R10-OAR-2016-0591 The public comment period was November25 to December27, 2016. We received two comments: 1. A letterfrom ADEC acknowledging ourworkand supporting the directfinal action. 2. Athird party comment on the DFR, discussion follows. The third party commenterstates, all Native American/Alaskan Native Tribes “should incorporate into theirtools and equipmentan airquality monitorpriorto the permitting ofthis revision.” The commenter goes on to explain how air monitors could be used byvillagesto better inform residents ofthe status of air quality control, especiallythose with respiratory issues. The commenter also promotes the use of burn barrels or burn boxesto prevent open dump burning and subsequent run awayfires as well as wild land fires caused by human erroror mismanagement and possible Local Tribe and state enforcement optionsfor addressing these concerns. The SIP approval at hand does not in anyway address air monitors, open burning, wildland fires, or air quality more generally, but instead solely addresses permitting fees submitted pursuantto in Clean Air Act (CM) 110(a)(2)(L). This comment is therefore not a comment adverse to EPA’s action. The comments submitted byADEC are supportive of EPA’s action and therefore are also not adverse comments. Because EPA does not considerany ofthe comments received during the public comment as adverse, EPA intends to allowthe DFR to take effect as originally proposed January 24, 2017 will be the effective date.
##### 



COMPASS BANCSHARES, INC.
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP BENEFIT RESTORATION PLAN
AS AMENDED AND RESTATED AS OF JANUARY 1, 2005
 ARTICLE
I  Purpose and Adoption of Plan
 Adoption:
 Purpose:
 Purpose of the 2005 Amendment and Restatement:
 ARTICLE II  Definitions




---



##### 








---



##### 



Exhibit




---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE III  Administration of Plan




---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE IV  Arbitration




---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE V  Eligibility
    ARTICLE VI  Election for Deferral of Payment




---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE VII  Employer Contributions
  Exhibit
    ARTICLE VIII  Investment of Accounts




---



##### 



ARTICLE IX  Distribution of Accounts




---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE X  Covenant Not to Compete, Non-Solicitation,  Non-Disclosure and Forfeiture




---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE XI  Nature of Employer Obligation and Participant interest
    ARTICLE XII  Miscellaneous Provisions




---



##### 








---



##### 



and




---



##### 



18th December
 ATTEST:
    
    COMPASS BANCSHARES, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Joseph B. Cartee
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Garrett R. HegelIts:   Associate General Counsel
    
    
    
    Its:  Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A




---



##### 



EXHIBIT B
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, April 7, 1995 (58), Para 58.5 Designation of Speaker Pro Tempore to Sign Enrollments]
[Page 602]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.58.5  designation of speaker pro tempore to sign enrollments

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. BURTON, laid before the House a 
communication, which was read as follows:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                    April 7, 1995.
       I hereby designate the Honorable Frank R. Wolf to act as 
     Speaker pro tempore to sign enrolled bills and joint 
     resolutions through May 1, 1995.
                                                    Newt Gingrich,
                          Speaker of the House of Representatives.

  By unanimous consent, the designation was accepted.
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 154 (Friday, August 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 45006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3826]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


South Gifford Pinchot National Forest Resource Advisory Committee 
Meeting Notice

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This South Gifford Pinchot National Forest Resource Advisory 
Committee will meet on Thursday, September 6th at the Skamania County 
Courthouse Annex, 170 NW. Vancouver Ave., Stevenson, Washington. The 
meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 5 p.m. The purpose 
of the meeting is to review ongoing Title II and III projects, elect a 
chair, set an indirect project percentages, and make recommendations on 
proposals for Title II funding of projects under the Secure Rural 
Schools and County Self-Determination Act of 2000.
    All South Gifford Pinchot National Forest Resources Advisory 
Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are 
encouraged to attend. The ``open forum'' provides opportunity for the 
public to bring issues, concerns, and discussion topics to the Advisory 
Committee. The ``open forum'' is scheduled to occur at 9:45 a.m. on 
September 6, 2007. Interested speakers will need to register prior to 
the open forum period. The committee welcomes the public's written 
comments on committee business at any time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to Chris Strebig, Public Affairs Specialist, at (360) 891-5005, 
or write Forest Headquarters Office, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, 
10600 NE. 51st Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682.

    Dated: July 27, 2007
Lynn Burditt,
Deputy Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07-3826 Filed 8-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
§ 172.436 RADIOACTIVE WHITE-I label. ( a ) Except for size and color, the RADIOACTIVE WHITE-I label must be as follows:
( b ) In addition to complying with § 172.407, the background on the RADIOACTIVE WHITE-I label must be white. The printing and symbol must be black, except for the “I” which must be red.
[Amdt. 172-123, 56 FR 66259, Dec. 20, 1991]
#### Arthur MILLER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 14057.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit

Argued June 11, 1958.

Decided Aug. 7, 1958.

*188Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Lloyd K. Garrison, New York City, and John Silard, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Daniel H. Pollitt, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.

Mr. William Hitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Harold D. Rhy-nedance, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. John D. Lane, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before Edgerton, Chief Judge, Pret-tyman, Wilbur K. Miller, Bazelon, Fahy, Washington, Danaher, Bastían and Burger, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for unlawfully refusing to answer a question put to him by a Committee of the House of Representatives, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192. The question asked appellant to name the persons present with him at a meeting of “Communist writers” in 1947.1 The record shows the witness urged the Chairman not to press the direction to answer the question and requested him to defer it until a later time. The Chairman agreed.2 The hearing terminated shortly thereafter without any unequivocally renewed direction or command to answer the “suspended” question. Thus, the requirement of Quinn v. United States,3 that it be brought home to the witness that he risks the penalties of contempt if he refuses to answer the question, was not followed. We need not speculate why the question was not renewed before closing the hearing; it is enough that on the whole record it seems clear that appellant had a right to leave the hearing thinking that the direction to answer was still suspended, if not abandoned. The Chairman’s closing statement to appellant, while not determinative, is consistent with our reading of the record:

> “The Chairman. You have learned a great deal and made a greater contribution to what we think you now stand for than you realize, because, by the errors that you committed, you are serving a very loud note of warning to a lot of other people who might fall into what you did, quite obviously.

> “The committee is now adjourned.”

Appellant has raised other points, including the argument that the question was not pertinent in fact, and that explanation of pertinency was not given as required by Watkins v. United States.4 However, the absence of a direction to answer as required by the Quinn case makes it unnecessary to reach these contentions.

Reversed with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal.

1

. “Can you tell us who was there when you walked into the room?”

2

. “Mr. Miller. Mr. Walter, could I ask *you4*to postpone this question until the testimony is completed and you can gage [sic] for yourself?

> “The Chairman. Of course, you can do that, but I understand this is about the end of the hearing.”

3

. 1955, 349 U.S. 155, 75 S.Ct. 668, 99 U.Ed. 964, see also United States v. Kamp, D.C.1052, 102 F.Supp. 757, 759.

4

. 1957, 354 U.S. 178, 77 S.Ct. 1173, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273.
EXHIBIT
23.2 
  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on S-8
(No. 333-160363) of Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc. of our report dated
March 27, 2009, except with respect to our opinion on the consolidated financial
statements insofar as it relates to the effects of the retrospective adoption of
ASC 810 "Consolidation" and ASC 480-10-S99 "Distinguishing Liabilities from
Equity", as to which the date is November 23, 2009, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc. at December 31,
2008 and for the period from March 20, 2008 to December 31, 2008 and
consolidated statements of operations, of equity (members' deficit) and of cash
flows of Waterfront Partners OP, LLC for the period from January 1, 2008 through
March 19, 2008, which appear in this Form 10-K.
  
  /s/PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
  Los
Angeles, California
  March 22,
2010
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2005

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical corrections in

maps relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 11, 1995

Mr. FORBES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical

corrections in maps relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

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

3 SECTION 1. CORRECTION TO MAP.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior

5 shall, before the end of the 30-day period beginning on

6 the date of the enactment of this Act, make such correc7 tions to the map described in subsection (b) as are nec8 essary—

9 (1) to move on that map the eastern boundary

10 of the excluded area covering Ocean Beach, Seaview,
2

•HR 2005 IH

1 Ocean Bay Park, and part of Point O’Woods to the

2 western boundary of the Sunken Forest Preserve;

3 and

4 (2) to ensure that on that map the depiction of

5 areas as ‘‘otherwise protected areas’’ does not in6 clude any area that is owned by the Point O’Woods

7 Association (a privately held corporation under the

8 laws of the State of New York).

9 (b) MAP DESCRIBED.—The map described in this

10 subsection is the map that is included in a set of maps

11 entitled ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources System’’, dated Octo12 ber 24, 1990, that relates to the unit of the Coastal Bar13 rier Resources System entitled Fire Island Unit NY–59P.

Æ
98-2276.

#### State v. Bruni.

Stark App. No. 98CA00105. Discretionary appeal allowed; *sua sponte,*cause held for the decision in 98-1627, *State v. Calhoun,*Lake App. No. 97-L-063; briefing schedule stayed.

Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.