alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
19–008

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 108–267

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2622, FAIR AND 

ACCURATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS ACT OF 2003

SEPTEMBER 9, 2003.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res 360] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 360, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2622, the 

Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, under a modified open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally 

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. 

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 

bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now 

printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 

purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule 

waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the 

nature of a substitute. 

The rule makes in order only those amendments to the committee amendment that are preprinted in the Congressional Record 

or are pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. The rule 

provides that each amendment printed in the Congressional Record 

may be offered only by the Member who cause it to be printed or 

a designee, and that each amendment shall be considered as read. 

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 

instructions.

Æ
# ONL)iiiiAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20-0460
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: DAVINA ATTAR-WILLIAMS,

Petitioner and Appellant, and STEVEN THOMAS WILLIAMS,

Respondent and Appellee. 

# FILED MAR 2 3 2021
Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Petitioner and Appellant Davina Attar-Williams has moved for a stay of this appeal pending the resolution ofher request to disqualify Hon.Donald L.Harris,who presided over the underlying matter in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court,Yellowstone County,Cause No.DR19-0893. Respondent and Appellee Steven Thomas Williams objects to Attar-Williams's motion. This Court has denied Attar-Williams's request to disqualify Judge Harris. As such, the grounds for her motion to stay this appeal are moot. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner and Appellant Davina Attar-Williams motion to stay this appeal is DENIED as MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner and Appellant Davina Attar-Williams shall prepare, file, and serve the opening briefon appeal no later than April 22, 2021. Failure to file the briefwithin that time will result in dismissal ofthis appeal with prejudice and without further notice.The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis order to Attar-Williams personally and to all counsel ofrecord. DATED this

0 73 day ofMarch,2021. /A(-,4( , — Aff ChiefJustice 03/23/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0460
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-20108 Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ASHOK KUMAR KHANNA, Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas (H-94-CV-3853)

______________________________________________

October 31, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Ashok Kumar Khanna, federal prisoner # 46985-079, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. He argues that
the district court erred in granting the Governme nt’s motion for summary judgment and in denying him an evidentiary hearing on his2

claims of ineffecti ve assistance of counsel based on counsel’s advice to go to trial and to stand by his trial testimony at sentencing. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and appellant’s brief and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons given by the district court. United States v. Khanna , No. H-88-190 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 1995).
Khanna’s argument that counsel was ineffective for advising him to stand by his trial testimony is deemed abandoned for failure to brief it adequately. S ee Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN B. JOHNSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0892 DFL DAD P

vs.

JIM HAMLET, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner’s counsel represented to the court by e-mail dated December 5, 2005,

that he “completed a draft petition quite some time ago” and stated that he would like to submit

the amended petition by December 30, 2005. Counsel proposed to submit the pleading on that

date, along with an application and declaration requesting permission to file the petition out of

time and addressing the reasons for his failure to appear at the December 2, 2005 status

conference and failure to file the amended petition timely. The court issued an order on

December 7, 2005, requiring petitioner’s counsel to file and serve a declaration addressing his

failure to comply with court orders together with a noticed motion for leave to amend and a

proposed amended petition on or before December 30, 2005.

Petitioner has filed only a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Case 2:04-cv-00892-MCE -DAD Document 39 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s memorandum filed December 30, 2005, is not responsive to the

court’s orders and will be disregarded;

2. On or before February 6, 2006, petitioner’s counsel shall file and serve a

declaration addressing (a) his failure to file, on or before September 22, 2005, a motion for leave

to amend with a proposed amended petition or, in the alternative, a statement that petitioner will

proceed on the original pro se petition; (b) his failure to appear at the status conference on

December 2, 2005; and (c) his failure, on or before December 30, 2005, to file and serve a

noticed motion for leave to amend with a proposed amended petition; and

3. On or before February 6, 2006, petitioner’s counsel shall file and serve a

noticed motion for leave to amend with a proposed amended petition.

DATED: January 23, 2006.

DAD:13

john0892.decmot

Case 2:04-cv-00892-MCE -DAD Document 39 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY AND ORDER THEREON -1-

04-110/PLEADING.066

CSP:ep

CHARLES S. PAINTER (SBN 89045)

REGINALD A. DUNN (SBN 192632)

ERICKSEN, ARBUTHNOT, KILDUFF,

DAY & LINDSTROM, INC.

100 Howe Avenue, Suite 110 South

Sacramento, CA 95825-8201

(916) 483-5181 Telephone

(916) 483-7558 Facsimile

Attorneys for Defendant

EAGLE MOLDING COMPANY # 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY B. SMITH; VICKI SMITH

Plaintiffs,

vs.

EAGLE MOLDING COMPANY #1

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CIV.S-04-1245 LKK GGH

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

AND ORDER THEREON 

Defendant, EAGLE MOULDING COMPANY #1, makes the following substitution of

attorney:

Former Legal Representation: CHARLES S. PAINTER (SBN 89045)

REGINALD A. DUNN (SBN 192632)

ERICKSEN, ARBUTHNOT, KILDUFF,

DAY & LINDSTROM, INC.

100 Howe Avenue, Suite 110 South

Sacramento, CA 95825-8201

(916) 483-5181 Telephone

(916) 483-7558 Facsimile

cpainter@eakdl.com

Case 2:04-cv-01245-LKK-GGH Document 40 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 1 of 2


Case 2:04-cv-01245-LKK -GGH Document 41 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY AND ORDER THEREON -2-

04-110/PLEADING.066

CSP:ep

New Legal Representation: Kevin Dean Smith SBN113633 

Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP

505 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 1100

Glendale, CA 91203-3804 

Telephone 818 551 6000 

Facsimile 818 551 6050 

kds@wshblaw.com

I consent to this substitution.

DATED: August 21, 2006 EAGLE MOULDING COMPANY #1

s/KevinMcCoolby authorization on 8/18/06

By: _________________________________

KEVIN McCOOL

I consent to this substitution.

DATED: August 21, 2006

ERICKSEN, ARBUTHNOT, KILDUFF,

DAY & LINDSTROM, INC.

s/ Charles S. Painter

By: 

CHARLES S. PAINTER

Attorney for Defendant

EAGLE MOLDING COMPANY# 1

I consent to this substitution.

DATED: August 21, 2006

WOOD,SMITH,HENNING&BERMAN,LLP

s/ Kevin D. Smith by authorization 8/18/06

By: _________________________________

KEVIN D. SMITH

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

JUDGE OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01245-LKK-GGH Document 40 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 2 of 2


Case 2:04-cv-01245-LKK -GGH Document 41 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 2
BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 82 Att. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05862]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9019-9]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 03/02/2015 through 03/06/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20150057, Draft EIS, APHIS, 00, PROGRAMMATIC--Asian Longhorned 
Beetle Eradication Program, Comment Period Ends: 04/27/2015, Contact: 
Jim E. Warren 202-316-3216.
EIS No. 20150058, Final EIS, USA, CO, Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) 
Training and Operations, Review Period Ends: 04/13/2015, Contact: 
Pamela M. Klinger 210-466-1595.
EIS No. 20150059, Draft EIS, NMFS, WA, The Makah Tribe Request to Hunt 
Gray Whales, Comment Period Ends: 06/11/2015, Contact: Steve Stone 503-
231-2317.
EIS No. 20150060, Draft Supplement, TVA, TN, Integrated Resource Plan, 
Comment Period Ends: 04/27/2015, Contact: Charles P. Nicholson 865-632-
3582.
EIS No. 20150061, Draft EIS, CALTRANS, CA, SR 710 North Improvements, 
Comment Period Ends: 07/06/2015, Contact: Garrett Damrath 213-897-0357.
EIS No. 20150062, Draft EIS, USFS, CA,Westside Fire Recovery Project, 
Comment Period Ends: 04/13/2015, Contact: Wendy Coats 530-841-4470.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service requested and 
was granted approval to shorten the public comment period for this 
Draft EIS from 45 to 30 days, reflecting the President's Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) alternative arrangements granted in 
accordance with 40 CFR 1506.11.

    Dated: March 10, 2015.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-05862 Filed 3-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
From: "John Reggi" <John.Reggi@ormet.com>

To: David Putney/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Tim Adamowicz" <Tim.Adamowicz@ormet.com>

Date: 06/27/2011 11:12 AM

Subject: RE: Follow up on pitch storage tanks at PAL facilities

In response to your questions below:

1. Ormet does not use any new pitch storage tanks

2. Ormet does not have any controls on existing pitch storage tanks. The process is currently not operating.

From: Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 6:01 PM

To: Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com; ksands@centuryky.com; kisnerj@noralnm.com; 

jvanmatre@centurywv.com; danny.carroll@riotinto.com; kisnerj@noralnm.com; John Reggi; 

Henk.VanDerMeyden@alcoa.com; Kathryn.Mitchell@alcoa.com; Patricia.Bilskis@alcoa.com; 

nathan.rufa@alcoa.com; Terry.Blodgett@alcoa.com; chris.allen@alcoa.com; david.hulse@alcoa.com

Cc: cjohnson@aluminum.org; bahner@rti.org

Subject: Follow up on pitch storage tanks at PAL facilities

Hello all,

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to the information collection request (ICR) dated April 

25, 2011 concerning the primary aluminum operations conducted at your facility. The information you 

provided will be instrumental in the ongoing associated residual risk/technology review. I have been going 

through the ICR responses I received and have a couple of follow-up questions concerning pitch storage 

tanks:

1. The ICR did not directly ask whether or not your facility utilizes any new pitch storage tanks (i.e. 

tanks installed after the proposal of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LL on 09/26/96)? Do you have any new 

pitch storage tanks that are subject to Subpart LL at your facility? If so, what controls do you use to meet 

the 95% POM reduction requirement in 40 CFR §63.844(d) [please submit this information on Table(s) 1 

through 5 found in the ICR for the associated control device(s), if applicable]?

2. It appears, based on the ICR responses I received, that the ICR may not have been clear in 

regards to submitting information on any controls that may be installed on existing pitch storage tanks at 

your facility that are subject to Subpart LL. If you have any existing pitch storage tanks at your facility that 

are subject to Subpart LL and that have emissions controls installed on them (even though those controls 

are not required under Subpart LL) please provide the information necessary to evaluate those controls 

[i.e. submit Table(s) 1 through 5 found in the ICR for the associated control device(s), if applicable].

I am sorry for the need for this follow-up email. Your time is valuable and I appreciate you taking time out 

of your busy days to provide this information.

Thanks again,

David Putney, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: putney.david@epa.gov
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-82,735-02

EX P ARTE CHARLES DE VON WASSERMAN, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 12-10-11,721-A IN THE 24 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM DEWITT COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of ag g rava ted sexual assault of a child and sentenc ed to ninety -nine y ear s’ imprisonment. The Thirteenth Co u r t of Appea ls aff

irmed his conviction. W

asserman v. State , 13-13-00144- CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Chri sti-Edinburg h Aug

. 14, 2014)(not desig nated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cle rk for

war ded it to this C ourt. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends, among other things, that trial counsel was i n eff ective by failing to consult and hire an expert witness, failing t o ef fe ct i vely cross-e x amine witnesses, failing to call favor able witnesses, and failing to proper ly investiga te the case and t h e co mplainant’s medical

rec ords. Ap p l i ca n t h as alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v.W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Acc ording ly , the rec ord should be develope d. The trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). Trial counsel has already submitt ed an aff idavit and testi fied in a habeas hearing held on Marc h 4 , 2 0 2 2

. I f t he trial court believes fur t h er i nformation or testimony would assist in the making of his finding s of fac t, the trial court may

obtain a supplementa l affida vit or hold an additional hea ring

. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether , considering the totality of the circ umstances, the common-law doctrine of lache s bars equitable re li e f in this case . Ex parte Perez , 398 S.W .3d 206 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The trial court shall also make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether , in light of the totality of the evidenc e prese nted at trial, trial counsel’s perf

ormanc e was defic ient and Applicant was prejudice d. The trial court may make any other finding s and conc lusions that it deems a ppropriate in response to Applica nt’s claims. The trial court shall m ak e findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcri pts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: Apr il 20, 2022 Do not publish
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 22, 2015

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-1298

Lower Tribunal No. 12-28532 B

________________



### Justin Hulse

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Bronwyn C.

Miller

, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Assistant Public

Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jonathan Tanoos

, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, LAGOA, and SALTER, JJ.

LAGOA, J.

Justin Hulse (“Hulse”) appeals the trial court’s revocation of his community

control and sentence.We affirm without discussion the revocation and sentence as the State

proved by a preponderance of the evidence each violation relied on by the trial

court to revoke Hulse’s community control. However, we remand the case to the

trial court for entry of a written order to conform to the trial court’s oral

pronouncement. See Owens v. State

, 141 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Brown

v. State

, 127 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); see also Thompson v. State

, 965 So.

2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“When a conflict exists between an oral

revocation pronouncement and the written order revoking probation, the oral

pronouncement will control.”).

Order and sentence affirmed; remanded with directions.

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LYNN HUBBARD, III, SBN 69773

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD IV, SBN 212970

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE

CHICO, CA 95926

Telephone: (530) 895-3252

Fax: (530) 894-8244

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ROBERT DODSON

JASON B. MATECKI

IN PRO PER

3401 Conant Avenue

Modesto, CA 95356

Telephone: (209) 610-4268

Fax: (209) 523-0129

SHANE SINGH

KRING & CHUNG LLP

2151 River Plaza Drive, Suite 310

Sacramento, CA 95833

Telephone: (916) 564-7000

Fax: (916) 564-6000

Attorney for Defendant

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DODSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. dba

DOLLAR TREE #1203; JASON B.

MATECKI; and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CIV. S 04-1068 MCE CMK

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND

ORDER THEREON AS TO DEFENDANT

JASON B. MATECKI ONLY 

TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES:

Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and Release between plaintiff, ROBERT

DODSON, and defendant, JASON B. MATECKI, the parties hereby request that the Court

dismiss the above-entitled action, with prejudice, as to defendant JASON B. MATECKI.

Case 2:04-cv-01068-MCE -CMK Document 30 Filed 07/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Nothing is this Request for Dismissal shall be construed to affect plaintiff’s complaint

and claims in the above-referenced case against defendants other than defendant JASON

B. MATECKI.

Dated: July 19, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

 /S/ Lynn Hubbard, III 

LYNN HUBBARD, III

Attorney for Plaintiff

ROBERT DODSON

Dated: July 19, 2005 JASON MATECKI

Signature on File 

JASON B. MATECKI

IN PRO PER

Dated: July 6, 2005 KRING & CHUNG LLP

Signature on File 

SHANE SINGH

Attorney for Defendant

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. dba 

DOLLAR TREE #1203

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff, USDC Case No. CIV.S-04-

1068 MCE CMK, is hereby dismissed with prejudice as to JASON B. MATECKI only.

Dated: July 21, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01068-MCE -CMK Document 30 Filed 07/21/05 Page 2 of 2