alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. 1270

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

An Act

To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed at 8th Avenue and

Mill Street in Eugene, Oregon, as the ‘‘Wayne Lyman Morse United States Courthouse’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF WAYNE LYMAN MORSE UNITED STATES

COURTHOUSE.

The United States courthouse to be constructed at 8th Avenue

and Mill Street in Eugene, Oregon, shall be known and designated

as the ‘‘Wayne Lyman Morse United States Courthouse’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the United States courthouse

referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the

Wayne Lyman Morse United States Courthouse.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### ROSE CLARK and I. D. Clark, Respondents, v. C. J. CLEVELAND and Ebb Cleveland, Doing Business as C. J. Cleveland and Son, Appellants.

(235 N. W. 342.)

Opinion filed February 18, 1931.

*A. L. Games*and *Hyland &*Foster, for appellants.

*Aloys Wartner,*for respondents.

Birdzell, J.

This is an appeal from an order in tbe county court of Wells county denying tbe defendants’ motion for a change of venue. Tbe plaintiff brought action against tbe defendants for rent due and unpaid under a lease prior to tbe abandonment of tbe premises and for additional rents to accrue in tbe future but which are automatically matured upon tbe violation of tbe lease as alleged in tbe complaint. Tbe summons was served on both defendants in Wilton, McLean county, on tbe 12th day of June, 1930. Tbe defendants later moved for a change of place of trial to McLean county supporting tbe motion by affidavits. Tbe affidavits showed that tbe defendants were residents of McLean county at tbe time of tbe service of summons upon them. *461The motion was resisted by the plaintiff who likewise submitted affidavits which did not take issue with the statements in the defendants’ affidavits as to their place of residence at the time of the service, but merely showing that the convenience of witnesses might be subserved by a trial in the county of Wells and at least tacitly admitting that while the defendants had been residents of Harvey in Wells county they no longer resided there and had not resided there later than June 5th.

Upon this showing it was clearly error to deny the defendants’ motion for change of place of trial. In an action of this character the defendant has an absolute right to change to the county of his residence if he seasonably makes demand therefor. Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 7417 and 7418; Hinsey v. Alcox, 38 N. D. 52, 164 N. W. 296; Fargo Silo Co. v. Pioneer Stock Co. 42 N. D. 48, 171 N. W. 849; State v. Bloom, 49 N. D. 224, 190 N. W. 812; Thorson v. Weimer, 59 N. D. 457, 230 N. W. 596, 599.

The right being absolute the order denying the motion cannot be supported on the ground that trial in Wells county will subserve the convenience of witnesses. The proper practice in such case is to make a motion in the court in which the defendants have the right to have the case heard. When such a motion is there made it invokes the discretion of the court to transfer the case to some other county on the grounds of prejudice or to subserve the convenience of witnesses and promote the ends of justice. Veeder v. Baker, 83 N. Y. 156; Ivanusch v. Great Northern R. Co. 26 S. D. 158, 128 N. W. 336; McSherry v. Pennsylvania Consol. Gold-Min. Co. 97 Cal. 637, 32 Pac. 711.

The order appealed from must be reversed. It is so ordered.

Christianson, Oh. J., and Nuessle, Burr and Burke, JJ., concur.
No. 394, Misc.

#### Owens *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Kirby W. Patterson*for the United States.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40227 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ESTEBAN CASABON

- RAMIREZ, also known as Esteban Casabon,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:16

- CR

- 714

- 1

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Esteban Casabon

- Ramirez appeals following his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. He asserts that the district court plainly erred by convicting, sentencing, and entering judgment against him under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) base d upon its determination that his prior New York conviction

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 15, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40227 Document: 00514275206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2017No. 17

- 40227

2 for sexual abuse qualified as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) and therefore an “aggr avated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). Casabon

- Ramirez argues that the definitio n of a “ crime of violence” in § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague on its face in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). 1 He concedes that his constitutional challenge to § 16(b) is foreclosed by United States v. Gonzalez

- Longoria , 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16

- 6259). The G overnment has filed a motion for summary affirmance based on Casabon

- Ramirez’s concession. The parties are correct that Gonzalez

- Longo ria forecloses Casabon

Ramirez’s facial constitutional challenge to § 16(b). See Gonzalez

- Longoria , 831 F.3d at 672

- 77. The Government also moves , in the alternative, to stay the appeal until the Supreme Court decides whether § 16(b) is
unconstitutionall y vague in Sessions v. Dimaya , 137 S. Ct. 31 (2016) (granting certiorari). Gonzalez

- Longoria is binding precedent unless overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court, and a grant of certiorari does not override this court’s precedent. See Wicker v. McCotter , 798 F.2d 155, 157

- 58 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative
motion s to stay the appeal and for an extension of time to fil e a brief are
DENIED.

1 Although Casabon

- Ramirez also argues that his New York conviction does not constitute an “aggravated felony” under § 16(a) because the New York sexu al abuse statute sweeps more broadly than the generic definition of crime of violence , we need not reach that issue given the result regarding § 16(b)

. Case: 17-40227 Document: 00514275206 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2017
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.58 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: September 25, 2014 518727

________________________________ In the Matter of the Claim of LAUREN P. BRIGGS, Appellant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: August 4, 2014 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Rose, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.

__________ Lauren P. Briggs, Camillus, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Bessie Bazile of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 9, 2013, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Decision affirmed. No opinion. Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Rose, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.-2- 518727

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
#### Elizabeth C. Day, Respondent, v. The United States Mutual Accident Association of New-York, Appellant.

Order reversed and motion granted, with ten dollars costs of original motion, to abide the event. No costs of this appeal to either party.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000732026
<NAME> TRIO-TECH INTERNATIONAL
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1997
<CASH>                                             868
<SECURITIES>                                     7,104
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (404)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,784
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,843
<PP&E>                                          16,593
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,172)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,039
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         5,075
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,388
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,528
<SALES>                                         21,548
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,548
<CGS>                                           12,718
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   681
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,266
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,264
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,002
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .77
        

</TABLE>
From: Margo

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventative Care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:44:45 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in

asking you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as

pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and

to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless

women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny

women access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological

distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make

exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption

to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though

they employ people of all faiths and ideologies and take money from

taxpayers of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption

would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.
From: Loretta Kemsley

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:51:16 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Loretta Kemsley

P.O. Box 92-3713

Sylmar, CA 91392
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 Select Medical Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Martin F. Jackson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 presents, in all material
respects, the financial position and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Martin F. JacksonMartin F. Jackson
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1245 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1245

                   For the relief of Renato Rosetti.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 2001

  Mr. Nickles introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Renato Rosetti.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Renato Rosetti 
shall be held and considered to have been lawfully admitted to the 
United States for permanent residence as of the date of the enactment 
of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Renato Rosetti as 
provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by one number during the current fiscal year the 
total number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 <all>
```
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  318                                                               Trade Date: 8/04/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8, 2002)                                                                     Issue Date:  8/07/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementAugust  4, 2003

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP                                                                                                                                Date and terms of redemption or

     or        Stated                                                                  Interest                                    repayment (including any

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment  Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)               Maturity                Public (2)                Commissions      Frequency      Option     Yes/No                record dates)

14911QPF2     3.05%                       02/15/08           100%                    0.9%                  Monthly            YES           NO                                        

                          

Principal                                                                                1st Payment Day         

Amount                   Proceeds                 Dealer                            Date                  Count

$542,000.00                $537,122.00            ABN AMROInc.                 09/15/03                 30/360    

Original Issue Discount Note:                                                                   Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                   N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $208.477 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
From: Sandi Covell

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Institute of Medicine"s recommendations

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 4:37:47 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in

asking you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine

as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new health care

law, and to reject any exemptions for "religious employers." These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would

provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that "religious refusal" exemptions unjustly deny

women access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an

ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are

pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health

providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt

from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM's recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.

Thank you.

S. Covell
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40305 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOSE BERNARDO MARQUEZ-ROA,

Defendant-Appellant.

CONSOLIDATED WITH

____________________

No. 01-40360

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOSE MARQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC Nos. L-00-CR-1167-ALL & L-96-CR-9-ALL

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

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Bernardo Marquez-Roa (“Marquez”) appeals his conviction 

following his plea of guilty to illegal reentry into the United
No. 01-40305 cons/w No. 01-40360

-2-

States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Marquez argues that his indictment was defective under the Fifth

and Sixth Amendments because it did not allege general intent. 

 Because Marquez did not present this argument to the district

court, the indictment is reviewed with “maximum liberality.” 

United States v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 236 (5th Cir.

2000). Marquez’ indictment listed every statutorily required

element of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, informed him of the charge, and

fairly imported that his reentry was a voluntary act in view of

the allegation that he had been deported and removed from the

United States and was subsequently found in the United States

without having obtained the consent of the Attorney General. 

Marquez’ indictment was statutorily and constitutionally

sufficient. See id. at 239 n.13. 

Marquez’ conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.