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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 727 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 727

 Providing for a moratorium on the consideration of any bill or joint 
  resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that 
    contains any congressional earmark until a bipartisan panel is 
  established to provide oversight over the congressional earmarking 
    process and that panel reports its recommendations to the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 10, 2007

Mr. Flake (for himself and Mr. Moran of Kansas) submitted the following 
        resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for a moratorium on the consideration of any bill or joint 
  resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that 
    contains any congressional earmark until a bipartisan panel is 
  established to provide oversight over the congressional earmarking 
    process and that panel reports its recommendations to the House.

    Resolved, That, notwithstanding clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, it shall not be in order to consider 
any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
thereon, that contains any congressional earmark (as defined in such 
rule) unless and until--
            (1) a bipartisan panel comprised of Members appointed by 
        the Speaker and the minority leader is established to make 
        recommendations to the House on how to better provide oversight 
        of the congressional earmarking process to prevent waste, 
        fraud, and abuse of taxpayer funds; and
            (2) that panel reports its recommendations to the House.
                                 <all>
```
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 20, 2012*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.212 Corporate and Foreign Bonds** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
(R.D. 11548)

#### Authentic Furniture Prod. Inc. Arthur J. Fritz & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1081968, etc.

(Decided June 20, 1968)

*Stein*cG *Shostalc*for the plantiiffs.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Watson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the parties herein:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, which is incorporated herein:

> 1. That on -the dates of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or in the absence of sales freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were invoice unit prices net packed.

> 2. That the merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement eniunerated in the attached Schedule is not identified in the Final *912List published by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54721 [sic], effective February 27,1958.

> 3. That all the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement was entered for consumption subsequent to February 27, 1958.

> 4. That the appeals for reappraisement may be deemed submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise herein involved, and that such values for the merchandise covered by these appeals were the invoice unit prices, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Guillermo Amaya CRUZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT,* Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.

No. 99-71000.

I & NS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2001.**

Decided July 11, 2001.

Before WARDLAW, PAEZ, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor, Janet Reno, as Attorney General of the United States. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2). The Attorney General of the United States, rather than the Immigration and Naturalization Service, is the proper respondent in a petition for review of an order of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3)(A).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Guillermo Amaya Cruz was found removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. He petitions for review of the BIA’s decision that he is ineligible to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility under former INA § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1995). He also seeks review of the IJ’s decision that he is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to review Cruz’s petition because he was convicted of an aggravated felony. *See*8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); *Calcano-Martinez v. INS,*— U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 2268, 2268-71 150 L.Ed.2d 392 (2001)(“[While] the Court of Appeals ... lacks jurisdiction to hear the petitions for direct review, ... petitioners [may] proceed with their petitions for habeas corpus if they wish to obtain relief.”). We therefore dismiss his petition for review, without prejudice. *See id.; INS v. St. Cyr,*— U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (001).

DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 462 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 12, 2007.
    Resolved,  That the election contest relating to the office of 
Representative from the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana is dismissed.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
1 of 1

EPA’s Potential Reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act Provision Regarding Tribal Authority

– Meeting with the Water Committee of the Environmental Council of the States

Thursd ay, July 1 7 , 2014

2 :00

– 3 : 0 0 p.m. EDT Meeting Summary

EPA Presenters: Fred Leutner, EPA Office of Science and Technology

Tod Siegal. EPA Office of General Counsel Participants : Representatives from 20 states

Staff from the Association of Clean Water Administrators

Staff from the Association of State Drinking Water Agencies

The topic of the potential reinterpretation of the tribal authority provision of the Clean Water Act was one of several on the agenda. Fred Leutner then provided a n overview of the potential E PA

action to reinterpret the tribal authority provision of the Clean Water Act. In advance of the meeting, EPA provided a copy of the EPA letter from Betsy Southerland, dated June 18, 2014

, available at EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm

.

The meeting continued with an opportunity for questions and comments from participants. The following is a list of questions and comments received from participants during the meeting. For each of the questions, the EPA presenters provided responses that were consistent with the presentation materials

and other information available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm . Views and comments were acknowledged, and will be considered by EPA in developing the proposed rule.

 One participant expressed concern about whether the potential reinterpretation would affect tribes in th e state of Oklahoma

.

 One participant asked how many tribes nationally have been found eligible for TAS for

the water quality standards program.

 One participant asked about the legal justification for the reinterpretation s, and how it

relates to EPA ’ s views expressed in its 1991 TAS rulemaking.
16

16

40 40

42 42

44 44

46 46

18

18

20

20

22

22

Adriatic Ad r i at i c

Sea 

Strait of

Otranto Otranto

Thermaïkós

Kólpos

Lake

Prespa

Lake

Ohrid

Lake

Scutari

Sava

Sava

Mures

Tisa

Tisza

Vardar

Potamós Aliákmon

Drina

Tara

Piva

Drin

Lumi i Vjosës

Lumi i

Drava Danube

Danube

Danube

Danube

Drinit të Zi

Beli Drim

Drini i Bardhë

Morava

Velika

Juzna Morava

Ibar

Zapadna Morava

Republika

Srpska

Republika

Srpska

Federation of Bosnia

and Herzegovina

Federation of Bosnia Federation of Bosnia

and Herzegovina

NORTH 

ALBANIAN 

ALPS

S A R P L A N I N A

TRANSYLVANIAN ALPS

BALKAN MTS

P I N D

U S M

T

S .

D

I

N

A

R

I

C A

L

P

S

ALBANIA

BOSNIA

AND

HERZEGOVINA

BULG.

GREECE

CROATIA

HUNGARY

MACEDONIA

Republika

Srpska

Republika

Srpska

Federation of Bosnia

and Herzegovina

Federation of Bosnia

and Herzegovina

MONTENEGRO

KOSOVO

ITALY

ROMANIA

SLOVENIA

SERBIA

TRANSYLVANIAN ALPS

BALKAN MTS

P I N

D

U

S

M

T

S .

D

I

N

A

R

I

C

A

L

P

S

PA N N O N I A N B A S I N

NORTH 

ALBANIAN 

ALPS

S A R P L A N I N A

B A N A T

Gjakovë/

Ðakovica

Gjilan/

Gnjilane

Mitrovicë/

Kosovska

Mitrovica

Pejë/

Pec ́

Prizren/Prizren

Ferizaj/ ˆ

Urosevac

Berat

Durrës

Elbasan

Fier

Gjirokastër

Kavajë

Korçë

Kukës

Lushnjë

Peshkopi

Pogradec

Sarandë

Shëngjin 

Shkodër

Tirana

Vlorë

Banja

Luka

Bihac ́

Bijeljina

Bosanski

Brod

Doboj

Mostar

Neum

Pale

Prijedor

Sarajevo

Srebrenica

Tuzla

Zenica

Travnik

Kyustendil

Montana

Pernick

Vidin

Bjelovar

Dubrovnik

Karlovac

Knin

Osijek

Sesvete

Šibenik

Sisak

Slavonski Brod

Split

Udbina

Varazdin

ˆ

Glamoc

ˆ

Kljuc

ˆ

Foca

ˆ

Ploce

ˆ

Gorazde

ˆ

Brcko

ˆ

ˆ

Velika Gorica

Vinkovci

Vukovar

Zagreb

Édessa Flórina

Ioánnina

Kastoriá

Kateríni

Kérkyra

Kozáni

Lárisa

Thessaloníki

Véroia

Hódmezo ́ ́vásárhely

Kaposvár

Nagykanizsa

Pécs

Szeged

Szekszárd

Altamura

Andria

Bari

Barletta

Brindisi

Cerignola

Lecce

Manfredonia

Molfetta

Otranto

Taranto

Trani

Bitola

Gostivar

Kavadarci

Kumanovo

Ohrid

Prilep

Skopje

Stip

ˆ

ˆ

Strumica

Tetovo

Veles

Bar

Berane

Bijelo

Polje

Budva

Cetinje

HercegNovi Niksic ́

Pljevlja

Podgorica

Priboj

Ulcinj

Arad

Calafat

Deva

Drobeta-Turnu

Severin

Hunedoara

Petros ̧ani

Res ̧it ̧a

Târgu Jiu

Timis ̧oara

Belgrade

Bor

Kikinda

Kragujevac

Kraljevo

Leskovac

Nis

Novi Pazar

Novi Sad

ˆ

Pancevo

ˆ

Krusevac

ˆ

Cacak

ˆ ˆ

Paracin

Kicevo

ˆ

Pristina

Ruma

Šabac

Smederevo

Sombor

Subotica

Tivat

ˆ

Uzice

Valjevo

Vranje

ˆ

Vrsac

Zrenjanin

Celje

Corfu

0 50 Kilometers

0 50 Miles

Inter-Entity Boundary

Line (IEBL)

(Dayton agreement line)

Scale 1:3,600,000

Lambert Conformal Conic Projection

standard parallels 40o45’ N and 45o15’ N

0 50 Kilometers

0 50 Miles

CENTRAL BALKAN REGION

803403AI (G01093) 6-09

Boundary representation is 

not necessarily authoritative.
EX-34.14
(logo) Virchow Krause & company


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We have examined WestLake Settlement Services, LLC's compliance with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB applicable to
WestLake (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria") as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2008:

1122(d)(4)(xi) Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or insurance
payments) are made on or before the related penalty or expiration dates, as
indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for such payments, provided that
such support has been received by the servicer at least 30 calendar days prior
to these dates, or such other number of days specified in the transaction
agreements.

1122(d)(4)(xii) Any late payment penalties in connection with any payment to be
made on behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer's funds and not charged
to the obligor, unless the late payment was due to the obligor's error or
omission.

Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with these servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, WestLake Settlement Services, LLC complied with, in all material
respects, the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2008.


/s/ Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP
Virchow Krause & Company, LLP
February 25, 2009


Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP
Certified Public Accountants & Consultants
An Independent Member of Baker Tilly International
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0449n.06

No. 19-5964

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PATRICK RYAN SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

OPINION

Before: MOORE, CLAY, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

KAREN NELSON MOORE. Patrick Smith was indicted for being a felon in possession 

of firearms and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after police searched his car and 

discovered multiple guns and sets of ammunition. A nearby business owner noticed Smith’s car 

parked in the driveway of a vacant-looking house and asked the police to investigate. Initially 

suspecting Smith of trespass, the officers asked who he was and to whom the house belonged. 

About eleven minutes into the stop, the officers discovered that Smith had guns and ammunition 

in his car, and after the officers saw the guns, Smith told the officers that he was a felon.

Smith moved to suppress the evidence coming out of that encounter under the Fourth and 

Fifth Amendments, but the magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny Smith’s

request. R. 28 (R. & R. at 36) (Page ID #138). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) and denied Smith’s motion to suppress. R. 29 (Mem. & 
No. 19-5964, United States v. Smith

2

Order) (Page ID #139). The case proceeded to trial, and a jury convicted Smith of multiple counts 

of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. R. 43 (Jury Verdict) (Page ID #204). 

Smith timely appealed and solely challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress 

on Fourth Amendment grounds under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). We hold that Smith

forfeited his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress because his counsel did not object 

to the R&R.

“In this circuit, the failure to object to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation 

results in a [forfeiture] of appeal on that issue as long as the magistrate judge informs the parties 

of the potential [forfeiture].” United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878 (6th Cir. 2019); see 

also Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2019) (clarifying that the failure to file 

objections to an R&R results in forfeiture, not waiver). The magistrate judge informed Smith of 

the potential forfeiture here—noting that any objections must be filed within fourteen days and 

that the failure to file timely objections forfeits the right to an appeal—but Smith failed to submit 

objections. See R. 28 (R. & R. at 36 n.7) (Page ID #138). As Smith concedes, no exception to 

forfeiture previously enumerated in our cases applies. And Smith’s argument that we should 

excuse the forfeiture because his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the R&R is better

suited to a collateral proceeding. We accordingly deem Smith’s argument forfeited and AFFIRM

the district court’s decision denying Smith’s motion to suppress.
#### In the Matter of Lucille Licitra, Appellant, v Michael Licitra, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 970]

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), dated January 3, 1994, which denied her application for additional visitation with the children in her home.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Family Court in a custody or visitation proceeding depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and its evaluation of the testimony and character of the parents. The court’s findings, therefore, must be treated with respect unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see, Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167; *Maloney v Maloney,*208 AD2d 603).

We find no basis for disturbing the Family Court’s determination in this case. The determination, which limited the mother’s visitation, is supported by the record, in particular, *667the evidence supplied by the court-appointed psychiatrist who examined the parties and the children. Moreover, we note that the children’s Law Guardian submitted a brief in support of affirmance of the determination. Altman, J. P., Hart, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
No. 57739.

protest 181256-K (Los Angeles).

#### N. I. Malmstrom & Company *v.*United States,

*364Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the  thirteen week Period  ended December 26, 1999 and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001037478
<NAME>                        THE FONDA GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-24-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1999
<CASH>                                             517
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,348
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,393
<INVENTORY>                                     60,558
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,312
<PP&E>                                          77,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 210,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,433
<BONDS>                                        146,841
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   210,465
<SALES>                                         97,572
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,572
<CGS>                                           78,672
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,672
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   595
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,775
<INCOME-TAX>                                       710
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,065
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,065
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

October 24, 1966

No. P66/288. —

#### M. Hohner, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 64/22197 and 64/22209 (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the •merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of chord organs and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Excelsior*Accordions, *Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 148, C.D. 2328), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 3 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 3

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 4, 2007.
    Resolved,  That a committee of two Members be appointed by the Speaker on 
the part of the House of Representatives to join with a committee on the part of 
the Senate to notify the President of the United States that a quorum of each 
House has assembled and Congress is ready to receive any communication that he 
may be pleased to make.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 637 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     September 7, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 2008. All points of order against the conference report 
and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
No. 66521.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/25559 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of burners “XBO 162,” high pressure Xenon lamps, and that the principle of operation of the merchandise is the same as the “tubular-shaped burners” the subject of *Charles A. Redden et al.*v. *United States*(19 C.C.P.A. 401, T.D. 45574). In accordance therewith, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.