alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

WARDELL CROCKETT, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 11-2124 (RBW)

)

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

At the time petitioner filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, he was detained at the 

District of Columbia Jail pursuant to a parole violator warrant issued by the United States Parole 

Commission (“USPC”). See Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Custody in the 

District of Columbia [Dkt. #1] at 5. The USPC filed a motion to dismiss the petition [Dkt. #5] 

on February 6, 2012. On February 8, 2012, the Court issued an Order which directed the 

petitioner to file his opposition or other response to the motion no later than March 9, 2012. The 

Order notified petitioner that, if he failed to respond by that date, the Court would treat the 

USPC’s motion as conceded and may summarily dismiss this case. To date, petitioner neither 

has filed an opposition, a request for more time to file an opposition, nor a change of address.

1

 

 1 Pursuant to the USPC’s February 3, 2012 Notice of Action, see United States Parole 

Commission Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Ex. F, 

petitioner was to be released from custody, although the date of petitioner’s release is not 

indicated. Neither the District of Columbia Department of Corrections VINELink nor the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator indicates that petitioner remains in custody.
2

Accordingly, the Court treats the motion as conceded and will grant respondent’s motion 

to dismiss. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: September 17, 2012 REGGIE B. WALTON

United States District Judge
#### Mary L. McKenna, *Administratrix,*Appel*lant, v.*Thomas Bolger, *Respondent.*

Judgment reversed and judgment on demurrer ordered for plaintiff, with leave to withdraw demurrer and answer on usual terms. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
§ 246.109 Determinations required for certification and recertification. ( a ) After FRA has approved a railroad's signal employee certification program, the railroad, prior to initially certifying or recertifying any person as a signal employee, shall, in accordance with its FRA-approved program, determine in writing that: ( 1 ) The individual meets the prior safety conduct eligibility requirements of §§ 246.111 and 246.113;
( 2 ) The individual meets the eligibility requirements of §§ 246.115 and 246.303;
( 3 ) The individual meets the visual and hearing acuity standards of §§ 246.117 and 246.118;
( 4 ) If applicable, the individual has completed a training program that meets the requirements of § 246.119;
( 5 ) The individual meets the qualification requirements of § 246.120; and
( 6 ) The individual has the necessary knowledge, as demonstrated by successfully completing testing and practical demonstration that meet the requirements of § 246.121.
( b ) Nothing in this section, § 246.111, or § 246.113 shall be construed to prevent persons subject to this part from entering into an agreement that results in a railroad obtaining the information needed for compliance with this subpart in a different manner than that prescribed in § 246.111 or § 246.113.
**Exhibit 99.4**
**CFO CERTIFICATION**
         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Derek J. Kerr, the Chief Financial Officer ofAmerica West Airlines, Inc. (the ***“Company”***), hereby certifies that, to the bestof his knowledge:
**1.**     The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2002, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.4 (the***“Periodic Report”***) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) orsection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
**2.     **     The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
         **In Witness Whereof,**the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 17thday of October, 2002.     /s/ Derek J. Kerr
|EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. (b) (F2)

Vermont Transco LLC

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (b) (F2)

C.V. Realty, Inc. (a) (F1)

Central Vermont Public Service Corporation -
   East Barnet Hydroelectric, Inc. (a) (F1)

Custom Investment Corporation (a) (F1)

Catamount Resources Corporation (a) (F1)

Eversant Corporation (a) (c) (F1)
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|(FN)
(F1)

(F2)
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2415 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2415

 To designate the United States Customs Administrative Building at the 
 Ysleta/Zaragosa Port of Entry located at 797 South Ysleta in El Paso, 
Texas, as the ``Timothy C. McCaghren Customs Administrative Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 1995

 Mr. Coleman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States Customs Administrative Building at the 
 Ysleta/Zaragosa Port of Entry located at 797 South Ysleta in El Paso, 
Texas, as the ``Timothy C. McCaghren Customs Administrative Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Customs Administrative Building at the Ysleta/
Zaragosa Port of Entry located at 797 South Ysleta in El Paso, Texas, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Timothy C. McCaghren Customs 
Administrative Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Timothy C. McCaghren Customs 
Administrative Building''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, W. Douglas Parker, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of America West Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) and Derek J. Kerr, the Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:
1.  The Company’s Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June30, 2004, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”),fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and 2.  The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 26th day of April 2005.    /s/ W. Douglas Parker  W. Douglas Parker Chief Executive Officer    /s/ Derek J. Kerr  Derek J. Kerr Chief Financial Officer
56
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99
----------


Company Name Change

     Effective May 10, 2000 the Company changed its name to The Premcor Refining
Group Inc. from Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc.  In connection with this name
change, the following affiliated companies have also changed their names:

  New Name                           Former Name
  --------                           -----------

Ultimate Parent:
  Premcor Inc.                       Clark Refining Holdings Inc.

Parent Company and subsidiary:
  Premcor USA Inc.                   Clark USA, Inc.
  The Premcor Pipeline Co.           Clark Pipe Line Company

Subsidiaries:
  Premcor Investments Inc.           Clark Investments, Inc.
  Premcor P.A. Pipeline Company      Clark Port Arthur Pipe Line Company
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 45731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3990]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Membership of the Office of the Secretary Performance Review 
Board

AGENCY: Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of membership on the Office of the Secretary Performance 
Review Board.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 5 U.S.C., 4314(c)(4), Department of 
Commerce (DOC) announces the appointment of persons to serve as members 
of the Office of the Secretary (OS) Performance Review Board (PRB). The 
OS PRB is responsible for reviewing performance Ratings, pay 
adjustments and bonuses of Senior Executive Service (SES) members. The 
term of the new members of the OS PRB will expire December 31, 2009.
    Effective Date: The effective date of service of appointees to the 
Office of the Secretary Performance Review Board is upon publication of 
this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise A. Yaag, Director, Office of 
Executive Resources, Office of Human Resources Management, Office of 
the Director, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 
(202) 482-3600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The names, position titles, and type of 
appointment of the members of the OS/PRB are set forth below by 
organization:

Office of the Secretary 2007-2009 Performance Review Board Membership

Office of the Secretary

    Tracey S. Rhodes, Director, Executive Secretariat.

Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration

    Fred Fanning, Director for Administrative Services.
    Barbara Retzlaff, Director, Office of Budget (Alternate).

Bureau of Industry and Security

    Mark M. Foulon, Deputy Under Secretary for Industry and Security.

National Institute of Standards and Technology

    W. Todd Grams, Chief Financial Office for NIST.

Office of the General Counsel

    Michael A. Levitt, Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and 
Regulation.
    Joan Maginnis, Assistant General Counsel for Finance and Litigation 
(Alternate).

    Dated: July 20, 2007.
Denise A. Yaag,
Director, Office of Executive Resources.
[FR Doc. 07-3990 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-BS-M
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51840-51841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4436]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production At of 1993--Interactive Advertising Bureau

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 5, 2007, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Interactive Advertising Bureau 
(``IAB'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions 
or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, IAB is currently developing Online 
Advertising Creative Delivery ``Best Practices'' Guidelines, Insertion 
Order and eBusiness Standards and Lead Generation Data Delivery ``Best

[[Page 51841]]

Practices'' Guidelines, and amending the Ad Unit Guidelines (formerly 
known as the Half-Page Ad Standard Guidelines) which were listed in the 
IAB's original notification.
    On September 17, 2004, IAB filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
October 21, 2004 (69 FR 61868).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 6, 
2006. a notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 30, 2006 (71 FR 63358).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antirust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-4436 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ENRIQUE ORTUNO

- ORTIZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 50142 D.C. No. 3:14

- cr - 03355

- GT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gordon Thompson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 20, 2016 ** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges

. Enrique Ortuno

- Ortiz appeals the 14

- mont h custodial sentence and the one

year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for improper entry by an alien , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 25 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 50142

Ortuno

- Ortiz argues that the distr ict court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately . He asserts that the court failed to cite any reasons for the upward variance, erroneously paraphrased the presentence report, and did not address his non

- fri volous mitigating argument s . We review for plain
error, see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1 103, 1108 (9th Cir.
201 0 ), and find none. T he record reflects that the court considered Ortuno

- Ortiz’s sentencing arguments, but believed that an upward variance to 14 months was warranted in light of Ortuno

- Ortiz’s three prior immigration convictions and the length of the sentences imposed in those cases

. Its explanation was sufficient.
See Unit ed States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992

- 93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Ortuno

- Ortiz also contends that his custodial sentence and supervised release
term are substantively unreasonable in light of his motive for reentry and status as a deportable alien. The district cou rt did not abuse its discretion

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances, including Ortuno

- Orti z’s crimina l history

. See id. ; U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cm t. n.5 (supervised release for deportable alien is
ap propriate if it would provide added deterrence and protection)

. AFFIRMED.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, September 18, 1995 (116), Para 116.19 National Park System Reform]
[Page 1370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.116.19  national park system reform

  Mr. HANSEN moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 260) to 
provide for the development of a plan and a management review of the 
National Park System and to reform the process by which areas are 
considered for addition to the National Park System, and for other 
purposes; as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. FOLEY, recognized Mr. HANSEN and Mr. 
RICHARDSON, each for 20 minutes.
  After debate,
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House suspend the rules and pass said bill, as amended?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. FOLEY, announced that two-thirds of the 
Members present had voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. RICHARDSON demanded that the vote be taken by the yeas and nays, 
which demand was supported by one-fifth of the Members present, so the 
yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. FOLEY, pursuant to clause 5, rule I, 
announced that further proceedings on the motion were postponed until 
Tuesday, September 19, 1995, pursuant to the prior announcement of the 
Chair.
```
#### Mary Hughes, as Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by

Hardin, P. J.
§ 245.3 Application and responsibility for compliance. ( a ) This part applies to all railroads except: ( 1 ) Railroads that do not have any dispatch (as defined in § 245.7) tasks performed either by dispatchers employed by the railroad or employed by a contractor or subcontractor;
( 2 ) Railroads that operate only on track inside an installation that is not part of the general railroad system of transportation (*i.e.,* plant railroads, as defined in § 245.7);
( 3 ) Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations that are not part of the general railroad system of transportation as defined in § 245.7; or
( 4 ) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation.
( b ) Although the duties imposed by this part are generally stated in terms of the duty of a railroad, each person, as defined in § 245.7, who performs any function required by this part must perform that function in accordance with this part.
#### § 24.7 Federal agency waiver of regulations in this part.

The Federal agency funding the project may waive any requirement in this part not required by law if it determines that the waiver does not reduce any assistance or protection provided to an owner or displaced person under this part. Any request for a waiver shall be justified on a case-by-case basis.
§ 232.3 Applicability. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, this part applies to all railroads that operate freight or other non-passenger train service on standard gage track which is part of the general railroad system of transportation. This includes the operation of circus trains and private cars when hauled on such railroads.
( b ) Subpart E of this part, “End-of-Train Devices,” applies to all trains operating on track which is part of the general railroad system of transportation unless specifically excepted in that subpart.
( c ) Except as provided in § 232.1(c) and paragraph (b) of this section, this part does *not* apply to: ( 1 ) A railroad that operates only on track inside an installation that is not part of the general railroad system of transportation.
( 2 ) Intercity or commuter passenger train operations on standard gage track which is part of the general railroad system of transportation;
( 3 ) Commuter or other short-haul rail passenger train operations in a metropolitan or suburban area (as described by 49 U.S.C. 20102(1)), including public authorities operating passenger train service;
( 4 ) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected with the general railroad system of transportation;
( 5 ) Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations, whether on or off the general railroad system;
( 6 ) Freight and other non-passenger trains of four-wheel coal cars;
( 7 ) Freight and other non-passenger trains of eight-wheel standard logging cars if the height of each car from the top of the rail to the center of the coupling is not more than 25 inches; or
( 8 ) A locomotive used in hauling a train referred to in paragraph (c)(7) of this subsection when the locomotive and cars of the train are used only to transport logs.
( d ) The provisions formerly contained in Interstate Commerce Commission Order 13528, of May 30, 1945, as amended, now revoked, are codified in this paragraph. This part is not applicable to the following equipment: ( 1 ) Scale test weight cars.
( 2 ) Locomotive cranes, steam shovels, pile drivers, and machines of similar construction, and maintenance machines built prior to September 21, 1945.
( 3 ) Export, industrial, and other cars not owned by a railroad which are not to be used in service, except for movement as shipments on their own wheels to given destinations. Such cars shall be properly identified by a card attached to each side of the car, signed by the shipper, stating that such movement is being made under the authority of this paragraph.
( 4 ) Industrial and other than railroad-owned cars which are not to be used in service except for movement within the limits of a single switching district (i.e., within the limits of an industrial facility).
( 5 ) Narrow-gage cars.
( 6 ) Cars used exclusively in switching operations and not used in train movements within the meaning of the Federal safety appliance laws (49 U.S.C. 20301-20306).
[66 FR 4193, Jan. 17, 2001, as amended at 85 FR 80570, Dec. 11, 2020]
From: Priscilla Florence [mailto:prisc2@comcast.net] 

Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 5:14 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Mental Health and Substance Abuse Parity in Health Insurance

There should be complete parity with physical health issues in all health plans. There should be 

no more discrimination in acceptance or issuance of a policy than exists for physical health.

 

This must be mandated for all insurance companies.

 

Current practices are way too limiting and preclude people from getting the help they need. 

Costs can be mitigated by promoting prevention campaigns and by various marketing devises i. 

e. credits for good health, responding to treatment, etc.

 

Priscilla Florence

1720 Main Street

Evanston, Il 60202
-----Original Message----- 

From: gedutisvytas@gmail.com [mailto:gedutisvytas@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:58 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

vytas gedutis 

1931 Latexo 

Houston, TX 77018