alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
// Customer: Library of Congress// Version : DHTML Trigger 2.1function cppUrlPatch(s) {	var translated = "";	var i;	var found = 0;	for(i = 0; (found = s.indexOf(':', found)) != -1; ) {		translated += s.substring(i, found) + "|";		i = found + 1;		found++;	}	translated += s.substring(i, s.length);	return translated;}var triggerParms = new Array();var excludeList = new Array();triggerParms["dt"] = 0; // disable trigger if 1triggerParms["mid"] = "MsF0ld0M1ZVEEYgQ0YBV5g=="; // model instance idtriggerParms["cid"] = "Zg8xEcQ4h9p0s15J1kVshg=="; // customer idtriggerParms["lf"] = 7; // loyalty factortriggerParms["sp"] = 2; // sample percentagetriggerParms["npc"] = 1; // no persistent cookies if 1triggerParms["rw"] = 129600; // resample wait (value in minutes)triggerParms["pu"] = 0; // pop-under controltriggerParms["olpu"] = 1; // On Load pop-under controltriggerParms["lfcookie"] = "ForeseeLoyalty_MID_MsF0ld0M1Z";triggerParms["ascookie"] = "ForeseeSurveyShown_MsF0ld0M1Z";triggerParms["width"] = 420; // survey widthtriggerParms["height"] = 500; // survey heighttriggerParms["domain"] = ".loc.gov"; // domain nametriggerParms["omb"] = "1505-0186"; // OMB number//triggerParms["cmetrics"] = "90010257"; // coremetrics client idtriggerParms["cpp_1"] = "userURL:" + cppUrlPatch (window.location.href);triggerParms["cpp_2"] = "Browser:"+ cppUrlPatch (navigator.userAgent); // customer parameter 2 - BrowsertriggerParms["capturePageView"] = 1;//excludeList[0] = "/exclude/"; //trigger script will not work under this path//triggerParms["midexp"] = 129600; // model instance expiry valuetriggerParms["rso"]= 0; //user has chosen to use Retry Survey OptiontriggerParms["aro"]= 0; //user has chosen to use Auto Retry Option, with SP=100//triggerParms["rct"]= 1; //The maximum number of times allowed to serve a survey to a user//triggerParms["rds"]= 1; //The minimum number of days to wait to serve a survey repeatedly//triggerParms["mrd"]= 1; //The total number of days that a user can be re-served a survey//DHTML ParametertriggerParms["dhtml"]= 0;// disable dhtml trigger if dhtml=0triggerParms["dhtmlWidth"] = 400; // welcome page widthtriggerParms["dhtmlHeight"] = 290; // welcome page heighttriggerParms["dhtmlURL"]= "http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/scripts/FSRInvite.html";
# sec5_sf133_schp_2020

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2020-10	&"Arial,Bold"&9V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout February 13, 2020
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1330

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Jerry Wayne Green, Jr., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: September 4, 2003

 Filed: September 19, 2003

___________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Green, Jr. (Green) appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Green’s

counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Green

has filed a pro se brief. Having considered both briefs, and following our

independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we affirm. 
-2-

Specifically, we disagree with Green’s contention that the government

breached the plea agreement; and we conclude that, in setting the base offense level,

the district court properly considered as “crimes of violence” Green’s 1998 attempted

residential burglary conviction resulting from his attempt to help his girlfriend escape

from a juvenile detention facility, and his 2000 residential-burglary conviction. See

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) (base offense level for firearm possession after two prior

felony convictions for crime of violence); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) (“crime of

violence” includes burglary of dwelling); United States v. Sun Bear, 307 F.3d 747,

750, 753 (8th Cir. 2002) (attempted burglary is crime of violence; attempted escape

from custody is crime of violence), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 2275 (2003). Green’s

ineffective assistance claims should be presented in post-conviction proceedings, if

at all. We find no other non-frivolous issues.

Accordingly, we grant counsels’ motion to withdraw and Green’s motion to

supplement his brief. We affirm the judgment.

______________________________
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 24(a)

               AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANY
                     POWER OF ATTORNEY

City of Minneapolis

State of Minnesota

Each of the undersigned as a director of Ameriprise Certificate Company,
a face-amount certificate company registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, hereby constitutes and appoints Paula R. Meyer,
Brian J. McGrane, David K. Stewart, Scott R. Plummer and Christopher O.
Petersen or any one of them, as his or her attorney-in-fact and agent,
to sign for him or her in his or her name, place and stead any and all
registration statements and amendments thereto (with all exhibits and
other documents required or desirable in connection therewith) that may
be prepared from time to time in connection with said Company's existing
or future face-amount certificate products - whether pursuant to the
requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the Investment Company Act
of 1940 or otherwise - and periodic reports on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q and
Form 8-K required pursuant to provisions of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and any necessary or appropriate filings with states or other
jurisdictions, and grants to any or all of them the full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act required or necessary or
appropriate in connection with such signatures or filings.

Signed on this 9th day of February, 2006
               ---


/s/ Rodney P. Burwell
-------------------------------------
Rodney P. Burwell



/s/ Jean B. Keffeler
-------------------------------------
Jean B. Keffeler



/s/ Thomas R. McBurney
-------------------------------------
Thomas R. McBurney


/s/ Karen M. Bohn
-------------------------------------
Karen M. Bohn
**Part 2, Section VII: GTAS Validations and Edits**

One of the goals the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) has envisioned for GTAS is to improve the consistency in agency trial balance reporting. This will be accomplished through validations and edits.

The validations ensure that the attributes reported in agencies’ GTAS trial balance submissions are valid for the USSGL account. The validations encompass both USSGL level attributes per the USSGL Attribute Table and Treasury Account Symbol (TAS) level attributes found in the Super Master Account (SMAF).

Simple validations are those involving one attribute while special validations involve more than one attribute. All validations are fatal.

The edits compare the agency trial balances with USSGL rules and with data from authoritative sources such as the Central Accounting Reporting System (CARS), Fiscal Service, and the Federal Financing Bank. The edits may be either fatal or proposed. Fiscal Service will use the proposed edits only for analytical purposes. Fiscal Service disclaims any role or responsibility with the agency auditor relationship concerning the GTAS fatal and proposed analytical edits.

The following are the validation and edit reports included in this section:

Page 1 of 1

# image1.png
EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|    |  |                                                
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|1.  |  | Internet Security Systems, Inc. (Georgia)      
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|2.  |  | ISS Group, Inc. (Delaware)                     
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|3.  |  | Internet Security Systems Ltd. (United Kingdom)
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|4.  |  | ISS Investment Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)       
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|5.  |  | Netrex, Inc. (Michigan)                        
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|6.  |  | NJH Security Consulting, Inc. (Georgia)        
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|7.  |  | Intelligent Shopping, Inc. (Georgia)           
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|8.  |  | Internet Security Systems NV (Belgium)         
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|9.  |  | Internet Security Systems KK (Japan)           
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|10. |  | Internet Security Systems Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|11. |  | Internet Security Systems Gmbh (Germany)       
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|12. |  | ISSX Internet Security Systems AG (Switzerland)
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|13. |  | Internet Security Systems Iberia SI (Spain)    
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|14. |  | Internet Security Systems Nordic AB (Sweden)   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|15. |  | Internet Security Systems Sarl (France)        
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|16. |  | Internet Security Systems Srl (Italy)          
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|   
|17. |  | Internet Security Systems Ltda. (Brazil)
Exhibit 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference:

          (i) in Registration Statement No. 33-54491 on Form S-8 pertaining to
     the James River Corporation of Virginia StockPlus Investment Plan;

          (ii) in Registration Statement No. 33-57153 on Form S-8 pertaining to
     the Fort James Corporation Canadian Employees Stock Purchase Plan;

          (iii) in Registration Statement No. 33-43894 on Form S-8 pertaining to
     the James River Corporation of Virginia Stock Option Plan for Outside
     Directors;

          (iv) in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No.
     2-83979 on Form S-8, serving as Post-Effective Amendment No. 5 to
     Registration Statement No. 2-64057, and as Post-Effective Amendment No. 2
     to Registration Statement No. 2-76900, each pertaining to the James River
     Corporation of Virginia Stock Option Plan;

          (v) in Registration Statement No. 33-56657 on Form S-8 pertaining to
     the James River Corporation of Virginia 1987 Stock Option Plan;

          (vi) in Registration Statement No. 333-02217 on Form S-8 pertaining to
     the James River Corporation of Virginia Stock Incentive Plan;

          (vii) in Registration Statement No. 333-02213 on Form S-8 pertaining
     to the James River Corporation of Virginia Director Stock Ownership Plan;

          (viii) in Registration Statement No. 333-33435 on Form S-8 pertaining
     to the Fort Howard Corporation Profit Sharing Retirement Plan and the
     Harmon Assoc., Corp. Profit Sharing Plan;

          (ix) in Registration Statement No. 333-33431 on Form S-8 pertaining to
     the Fort Howard Corporation Management Equity Participation Agreement, the
     Fort Howard Corporation Management Equity Plan, and the Fort Howard
     Corporation 1995 Stock Incentive Plan; and

          (x) in Registration Statement No. 333-47287 on Form S-3 pertaining to
     the shelf registration of $800,000,000 of debt securities of Fort James
     Corporation of our report, dated February 3, 1998, on our audits of the
     consolidated financial statements of Fort James Corporation as of December
     28, 1997 and December 29, 1996, and for each of the three fiscal years in
     the period ended December 28, 1997, which report is included in this Annual
     Report on Form 10-K.

                                                   /s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

     Richmond, Virginia
     March 23, 1998

                                      E-4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCO MONTOYA

- HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70800

Agency No. A095

- 697

- 941

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2022 * *

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN , Circuit Judges.

Marco Montoya

- Hernandez

, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s de nial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAY 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 70800

v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo questions of law.

Bhattarai v. Lynch , 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Montoya

- Hernandez ’s

motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than nine months after the

order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Montoya

Hernandez did not establish c hanged country conditions in Peru that are material to

his claim for relief, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (material evidence of changed

circumstances is required to qualify for an exception to the time and numerical

limitations for motions to reopen); Najmabadi , 597 F.3d at 987

- 90 (evidence must

be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening)

.

To the extent Montoya

- Hernandez contends he is eligible for cancellation of

removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention because it was not raised

in his motion to reopen to the BIA

. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78

(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the

agency). Additionall y, to the extent Montoya

- Hernandez challenges the BIA’s

underlying dismissal order, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision because it

was issued on April 2, 2015, and Montoya

- Hernandez did not file this petition for3 16

- 70800

review until March 24, 2016. 1 Se e Singh v. Lynch , 835 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir.

2016) (“A petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of

the final order of removal

. . . . This deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional.”

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

1 This court denied Montoya

- Hernandez ’s timely petition for review of the BIA’s underlying dismissal order on December 14, 2015. See Montoya

- Hernandez v. Lynch , 624 F. App’x 566 (9th Cir. 2015)

.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                                 SUBSIDIARY LIST

1. AEG Finance Corp, a Delaware corporation, wholly-owned by Maytag Aircraft
Corporation

2. Mercury Environmental and Scientific Services, Inc., a California
corporation, wholly-owned by Mercury Air Group, Inc.

3. Maytag Aircraft Corporation, a Colorado corporation, wholly-owned by Mercury
Air Group, Inc.

4. Mercury Air Cargo, Inc., a California corporation, wholly-owned by Mercury
Air Group, Inc.

5. Hermes Aviation, Inc., a California corporation, wholly-owned by Mercury Air
Cargo, Inc.

6. Pegasus de Mexico S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation, owned 99% by Mercury
Air Cargo, Inc. and 1% by Hermes Aviation, Inc.

7. Excel Cargo, Inc., a California corporation, wholly-owned by Mercury Air
Group, Inc.

8. Floracool, Inc., a Florida corporation, wholly-owned by Mercury Air Cargo,
Inc.

9. Vulcan Aviation, Inc., a California corporation, wholly-owned by Mercury Air
Cargo, Inc.

10. Maytag Aircraft Corporation, a Cayman corporation, wholly-owned by Maytag
Aircraft Corporation.

11. Wofford Flying Service, a California corporation, wholly-owned by Mercury
Air Group, Inc.

12. Rene Perez & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, wholly-owned by
Mercury Air Group, Inc.

13. Rene Perez Associates, Division El Salvador S.A. de C.V., an El Salvadorian
corporation, 99% owned by Rene Perez & Associates, Inc. and 1% owned by Mercury
Air Group, Inc.

14. Aero Freightways, Inc, a Canadian corporation, wholly-owned by Excel Cargo,
Inc.
Case No. 14,451.

#### UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 205.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1827.

Homicide — Manslaughter—Punishment.

In 1827. manslaughter, in the District of Columbia, was punishable by fine and imprisonment.

The prisoner [Willis Anderson] was convicted of manslaughter, by killing Gerard Arnold.

Sentence, to pay a fine of $300, and to be imprisoned one year, and until the fine and costs should be paid.
No. 62555.

#### Applicator Enterprises, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/1648 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sponges similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61191, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Current industrial reports. MA335E, Electric housewares and fans

 
SuDoc Number: C 3.158/59:
Item Number:0142-A-72 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000556259
 
1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |2006 |2007 |2008 |2009 |2010 | 
 
January 25, 2023
 
Full run of zipped Annual issues, 1993-2010, available here:https://permanent.fdlp.gov/lps39122/files.zip
 
Archived capture of Census index page for title, as it appearedin 2008:
https://permanent.fdlp.gov/websites/www.census.gov/www.census.gov/cir/www/335/ma335e.html
 
 
Archived capture of Census index page for title, as itappeared in 2023:
https://permanent.fdlp.gov/websites/www.census.gov/2023/www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/cir/ma335e.html
 
 
Live address, as of 2/2023: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/cir/ma335e.html
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM A. HICKS, Airman First Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

18 USCMA 38, 39 CMR 38

No. 21,465

November 22, 1968

*Colonel Joseph E. Krysakowski*and *Lieutenant Colonel Bertram Jacobson*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel James R. Thorn*and *Major James A. Johnson*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused was convicted by special court-martial of larceny, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921. At trial, an accomplice testified against him under arrangements with the convening authority, which trial counsel described as a “promise of immunity,” and which, on review, the board of review held “equated to . . . immunity.” The board of review determined that these arrangements disqualified the convening authority from reviewing the conviction. United States v White, 10 USCMA 63, 27 CMR 137. However, it concluded that review by a disqualified convening authority did not prejudice the accused. The board of review reasoned that the accomplice’s testimony merely corroborated the accused’s confession and was, therefore, cumulative; and that impartial review was, in fact, accomplished because the general court-martial authority also reviewed and affirmed the conviction. Neither reason has merit.

Appellate review by a superior authority does not excuse denial of the accused’s right to review by the convening authority. United States v Mc-Elwee, 16 USCMA 586, 37 CMR 206. As to the content of the accomplice’s testimony, it is the only evidence *aliunde*the accused’s pretrial statement regarding removal of the stolen prop*39erty from the store in which the accused was employed. It must be considered to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support the confession. See United States v Spain, 17 USCMA 347, 38 CMR 145. The testimony, therefore, is not merely cumulative.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. Thé record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for submission to another competent court-martial authority for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. United States v White, supra.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4345 

To amend the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 to reauthorize 

and expand State-wide assessments and strategies for forest resources. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2024 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER (for himself and Mr. MARSHALL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 

to reauthorize and expand State-wide assessments and 

strategies for forest resources. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Branch Out Implemen5 tation Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4345 IS

1 SEC. 2. STATE-WIDE ASSESSMENTS AND STRATEGIES FOR 

2 FOREST RESOURCES FUNDING. 

3 Section 2A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance 

4 Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101a) is amended by striking 

5 subsection (f) and inserting the following: 

6 ‘‘(f) FUNDING.— 

7 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

8 There is authorized to be appropriated to develop 

9 and implement the State-wide assessment and State10 wide strategy required by subsection (a) not more 

11 than $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 

12 through 2029. 

13 ‘‘(2) ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES.—In ad14 dition to funds appropriated for a fiscal year pursu15 ant to paragraph (1), the Secretary may use any 

16 other funds made available under this Act to develop 

17 and implement the State-wide assessment and State18 wide strategy required by subsection (a), except that 

19 the total amount of combined funding to develop and 

20 implement that State-wide assessment and State21 wide strategy may not exceed $40,000,000 in any 

22 fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS