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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1220 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1220

 To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the 
   numerical limitations on immigrant visas, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2017

 Ms. Hirono (for herself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Cortez Masto, 
Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Schatz) introduced the following bill; which was 
       read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the 
   numerical limitations on immigrant visas, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Filipino Veterans Family 
Reunification Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM IMMIGRANT VISA LIMIT.

    Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(F) Aliens who--
                    ``(i) are eligible for a visa under paragraph (1) 
                or (3) of section 203(a); and
                    ``(ii) have a parent (regardless of whether the 
                parent is living or dead) who was naturalized pursuant 
                to--
                            ``(I) section 405 of the Immigration Act of 
                        1990 (Public Law 101-649; 8 U.S.C. 1440 note); 
                        or
                            ``(II) title III of the Act of October 14, 
                        1940 (54 Stat. 1137, chapter 876), as added by 
                        section 1001 of the Second War Powers Act, 1942 
                        (56 Stat. 182, chapter 199).''.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered October 17, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00957-CV

KENNETH LEO BUHOLTZ, Appellant

V.

GREGG GIBBS AND CHARLES PHILIPS, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 004-01275-2016

ORDER

The clerk’s record in this appeal has been filed, as has appellant’s brief. The brief is 

deficient in that it does not contain the requisite citations to the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.1. 

It appears, based on a motion filed October 15, 2018, that appellant does not have a copy 

of the clerk’s record. In the motion, appellant, a pro se indigent inmate, seeks a stay of the 

appeal so that he can determine if the clerk’s record is “accurate.” He explains he requested, 

prior to the clerk’s record being filed, a copy of the trial court’s “Docket” for purposes of 

designating the items to be included in the record. To date, he has not received the “Docket.” 

We GRANT appellant’s motion to the extent we DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send 

a paper copy of the clerk’s record to appellant and ORDER appellant to file, no later than 
November 19, 2018, either a motion to supplement the clerk’s record designating any relevant 

items omitted from the record or an amended brief that includes appropriate citations to the 

clerk’s record and otherwise complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c), 38.1.

 

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
# C_2017022EN.01006002.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/60

---

Order of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — Gulli v EUIPO — Laverana (Lybera)

(Case T-284/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 022/81)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

1

---
October 1, 2023 

 LIST OF OVERSEAS ACCREDITED/TRUSTEED REINSURERS

Treasury authorized companies ceding to these Reinsurers should continue to report the cessions as 

unauthorized on the Treasury Schedule F, Part 1, and, at the same time, take credit on Treasury 

Schedule F, Part 2, for funds held in the multi-beneficiary trust accounts established in the U.S. 

Business ceded to the Reinsurers which is not covered by the Trust Account, and not otherwise offset by 

other funds held, will continue to be included in any applicable Schedule F penalty.

In addition, please note these trust accounts cannot be used to protect excess risks reported on FS 

Form 285-A.

 EID# Company Name 

 AA-3194168 Aspen Bermuda Limited

 AA-1120337 Aspen Insurance UK Limited

 AA-3194122 DaVinci Reinsurance Ltd.

 AA-1340125 Hannover Ruck SE

 AA-3190871 Lancashire Insurance Company Limited

 AA-1840000 Mapfre Re, Compania De Reaseguros S.A. 

 AA-3190829 Markel Bermuda Limited

 AA-1121425 Markel International Insurance Company Limited

 AA-3190686 Partner Reinsurance Company Ltd. 

 AA-3190339 Renaissance Reinsurance, Ltd.

 AA-3190870 ` Validus Reinsurance, Ltd.

 AA-1460006 Validus Reinsurance (Switzerland), Ltd.

 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (304) 480-6635.

 

 Sincerely,

 Bobbi McDonald

 Program Manager

 Surety Bond Branch

SURETY BOND BRANCH

200 THIRD STREET ~ RM 1010

PARKERSBURG, WV 26106

www.fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/

DEPARTMENT OF 

THE TREASURY

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE 

Washington, DC 20227
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 11, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 04-60469

LAURO AGUIRRE

Petitioner

VERSUS

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION

Respondent

Petition for Review of Order by the 

United States Parole Commission

(40889-180)

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Parole Commission did not clearly err in its factual

determinations that this homicide was intentional and not committed

in the heat of passion. Under these facts the commission did not

err in concluding that the most analogous United States crime to

the Mexican crime of simple murder was second degree murder. The
2

findings of the Commission which were in turn gleaned from the

record of the Mexican trial that particularly supported its factual

determinations were: 1)a considerable delay ensued from the time of

the physical encounter between the defendant and the bartenders in

the “Peanuts and Beer” bar; 2)uncontradicted evidence that the

defendant executed a u-turn with his automobile, turned his

headlights on, crossed over into the opposing lane of travel at a

high rate of speed and struck the victim. 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.3



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, David K. Spohr, Vice President and Director of Fund Administration of the Managing Owner, Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing
Owner), of World Monitor Trust  Series B (Series B), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Series Bs Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Series B.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David K. Spohr                                
|David K. Spohr                                    
|Vice President and Director of Fund Administration
|November 14, 2005
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06672**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 

### 06672\06672_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 06672\06672_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 

### 06672\06672_Part A.xls EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 06672\06672_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06672\06672_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06672\06672_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06672\06672_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 06672\Certification Statement Plant ID_06672.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 06672\Supporting Documents\06672_ Attachment A5-2 Map 3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06672\Supporting Documents\06672_ Attachment A5-2 Map1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06672\Supporting Documents\06672_ Attachment A5-2 Map4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06672\Supporting Documents\06672_ Part A5-3 WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 06672\Supporting Documents\06672_ Part C2-31 Block Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 06672\Supporting Documents\06672_ Part C3-36 Block Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06672\Supporting Documents\06672_ Part D3-1Block Diagram1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 06672\Supporting Documents\06672_ Part D3-1Block Diagram2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06672\Supporting Documents\06672_ Part D3-1Block Diagram3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 06672\Supporting Documents\06672_Attachment A5-2 Map 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 06672\Supporting Documents\06672_Attachment A5-2 Map 5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
1 Without explanation, Plaintiff failed to attend the status conference scheduled for

April 18, 2005. Unless she has good cause not to do so, Plaintiff must attend the June 15, 2005

status conference set by this Order if her case is to proceed.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARTHA STEELE

v.

HCI DIRECT

:

: CIVIL ACTION

:

: NO. 02-4347

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 5th day of May, 2005, it is ORDERED that a status conference shall

be held in the above-captioned matter on Thursday, June 16, 2005, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom

3A, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA.1

BY THE COURT:

S/Bruce W. Kauffman 

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 49 Filed 05/05/2005 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned officer of Global Resource Corporation (the "Company") hereby
certifies to my knowledge that the Company's annual report on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission the on date hereof, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or "filed" for any
purpose whatsoever.


Date: April 16, 2007                           Name:    /s/ Frank G. Pringle
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Frank G. Pringle
                                               Title:   Chief Executive Officer
# March 2015

# April 2015

# May 2015

# June 2015

# July 2015

# August 2015

# September 2015

# October 2015

# November 2015

# December 2015

# January 2016

# February 2016

# March 2016

# April 2016

# May 2016

# June 2016

# July 2016

# August 2016

# September 2016

# FY 2017 October 2016

# November 2016

# December 2016

# January 2017

# February 2017

# March 2017

# April 2017

# May 2017

# June 2017

# July 2017
No. P68/183.

protest 66/79747 (New York).

#### Amerex Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of nylon tights or leotards similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Children's Hose, Inc.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 6, C.D. 2547), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7223

CLARENCE JAY LYNCH, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:05-cv-00480-jlk) Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 22, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Jay Lynch, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Clarence Jay Lynch seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lynch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
**GAO-01-985R**                      Published: Aug 31, 2001. Publicly Released: Oct 01, 2001.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

Congress has funded many highway demonstration projects either through legislation authorizing surface transportation programs or annual appropriations for the Department of Transportation. As of April 2001, 28 highway demonstration projects with unobligated balances were no longer needed by the states because, according to the Federal Highway Administration, the projects are completed. These projects accounted for about $14.6 million in unobligated funds.

## Full Report

Full Report (6 pages)

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Transportation

Appropriated fundsFederal aid for highwaysFederal fundsPublic roads or highwaysUnobligated budget balancesBudget authorityHighway demonstration projectsTransportationEngineeringLegislation
Case 2:05-cr-00067-AB Document 62 Filed 09/10/09 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
A1                       323,788.54       1,070,217.23         0.00         49,064,782.77
A2                       322,916.67       1,124,543.62         0.00         48,875,456.38
A3                     1,106,956.25       3,983,425.90         0.00        173,129,574.10
A4                       592,911.04       2,207,186.75         0.00         95,929,813.25
A5                        83,958.75         (83,958.75)        0.00         13,583,958.75
A6                        91,287.50          96,187.50         0.00         14,509,812.50
A7                        62,500.00               0.00         0.00         10,000,000.00
A8                        96,187.50         (96,187.50)        0.00         15,486,187.50
A9                       312,675.00               0.00         0.00         50,028,000.00
APO                            0.00              78.73         0.00            104,458.88
AR                             0.63             100.00         0.00                  0.00
B1                        57,850.00           5,753.68         0.00          9,250,246.32
B2                        28,137.50           2,798.52         0.00          4,499,201.48
B3                        17,200.00           1,710.69         0.00          2,750,289.31
B4                        10,943.75           1,088.45         0.00          1,749,911.55
B5                         7,812.50             777.02         0.00          1,249,222.98
B6                        10,947.97             278.87       809.99          1,750,585.96

</TABLE>
2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-25-2009

In Re: I Re: Kevin Woodruff

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-1064

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: I Re: Kevin Woodruff " (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1691.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1691
 Woodruff has since been relocated on multiple occasions, and currently is 1

incarcerated at USP-Big Sandy in Kentucky.

1

HLD-39 (January 30, 2009) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1064

___________

IN RE: KEVIN PAUL WOODRUFF,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. Civil No. 3:06-cv-02310)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. 

January 30, 2009

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

 (Opinion filed March 25, 2009) 

______________

 OPINION

______________

PER CURIAM.

In December 2006, Petitioner Kevin Woodruff, a federal prisoner who, at

the time, was incarcerated at USP-Lewisburg in Pennsylvania, petitioned the District 1

Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In January 2009,
 Woodruff’s petition also seeks either a declaratory judgment or

2

preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 4081, which he claims

was enacted by less than a quorum of Congress and is therefore unconstitutional. 

Woodruff has not established that this claim warrants mandamus relief. See Hahnemann

Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456, 461 (3d Cir. 1996) (“The writ of mandamus is a

drastic remedy that a court should grant only in extraordinary circumstances in response

to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of power.” (citations and internal quotation

marks omitted)).

2

Woodruff petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus, requesting an order compelling

either the Respondent to answer Woodruff’s June 2008 motion to supplement his habeas

petition or the District Court to act upon his habeas petition. On March 12, 2009, the 2

District Court denied Woodruff’s habeas petition. Given that Woodruff has now received

one of the alternative forms of relief he seeks in his mandamus petition – a ruling on his

habeas petition – we will deny his mandamus petition as moot.