alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Impact of Automation : A Collection of 20 Articles About Technological Change, From the Monthly Labor Review

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Impact of Automation : A Collection of 20 Articles About Technological Change, From the Monthly Labor Review : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1287*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										November 1960,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4560,			accessed on September 11, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
132 STAT. 3762 PUBLIC LAW 115–268—OCT. 11, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3509: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Sept. 26, considered and passed Senate. 

Sept. 28, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–268 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act. 

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 ‘‘Congressional Award Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2018’’. 

SEC. 2. TERMINATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 108 of the Congressional Award Act 

(2 U.S.C. 808) is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2018’’ and 

inserting ‘‘October 1, 2023’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall take effect on October 1, 2018. 

Approved October 11, 2018. 

2 USC 808 note. 

Congressional 

Award Program 

Reauthorization 

Act of 2018. 

2 USC 801 note. 

Oct. 11, 2018 

[S. 3509] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
#### Charles INGLEDUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 99-927.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 21, 1999.

Charles Ingledue, Kingman, Arizona, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

THOMPSON, J.

Charles Ingledue appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion which was denied as successive. Ingledue had filed two previ*519ous motions to correct the credit for time served awarded at sentencing. The trial court ruled on the merits of those motions. Ingledue now has filed a 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In denying the motion, the court concluded that the prior motions were “properly brought pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla. R.Crim. P.” and therefore, Ingledue’s motion was successive. The court relied upon two cases, among others, from this court, *Brown v. State,*689 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), and *Chaney v. State,*678 So.2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In *Brown*and *Chaney,*we held that a motion to correct jail time credit was not cognizable in a Rule 3.800(a) motion unless the sentence was illegal in that it exceeded the statutory maximum. Otherwise the claim should be raised in a Rule 3.850 motion.

In *State v. Mancino,*714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998), the Florida Supreme Court disapproved these holdings. The Court stated:

> The entitlement to time served is not a disputed issue of fact in the sense that an evidentiary hearing is needed to determine where there is such an entitlement. Hence, if the record reflects that a defendant has served time prior to sentencing on the charge for which he was tried and convicted, and a sentence that does not properly credit the defendant with time served, then that sentence may be challenged under Rule 3.800.

Ingledue’s prior motions were properly filed pursuant to Rule 3.800, and therefore, this 3.850 motion is not successive. We reverse and remand with directions that the trial court consider this Ingledue’s first Rule 3.850 motion, and to address his claims on the merits.

REVERSED and REMANDED for consideration on the merits.

DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
BALANCE SHEET & INCOME STATEMENT
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   8-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,763
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,748
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,610
<INVENTORY>                                     11,323
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,928
<PP&E>                                          12,039
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 260,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,360
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            22
<OTHER-SE>                                     107,459
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   260,519
<SALES>                                        120,949
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               229,356
<CGS>                                          104,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  174,779
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,655
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,490
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,618
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,946
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,672
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,672
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011�1003

Combined Multibeam and LIDAR Bathymetry Data from Eastern Long Island Sound and Westernmost Block Island Sound � A Regional Perspective

----

## Geographic Information System Data Catalog 

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey
#### Michael D. Canuso Construction, Inc., Respondent, v Douglas E. Rogers et al., Appellants.

[699 NYS2d 462]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, *219the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated April 27, 1999, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to renew the defendants’ prior motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion was granted by order of the same court dated March 4,1999, and, upon renewal, denied the motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced the instant action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of a home improvement contract. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff was not a licensed home improvement contractor. The legislative intent to protect residential homeowners places the burden unequivocally on the contractor to ensure that the license requirements are strictly complied with *(see, Ellis v Gold,*204 AD2d 261; *George Piersa, Inc. v Rosenthal,*72 AD2d 593). We agree with the Supreme Court that whether the plaintiff was a licensed contractor is an issue of fact precluding summary judgment. Thus, on renewal, it properly denied the defendants’ motion. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J UA N C AR L OS R I VE R A- C E R E Z O, a. k. a. Juan C ar l os R i vera , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71918 A ge nc yN o. A 092- 552- 077 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Juan C ar l os R i ve r a - C e r e z o, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s o r d e rd e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n f o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We r e v i e w d e n o v o q u e s t i o n s o f l aw, 

# FI LED MA R 01 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71918 2 Cheuk Fun g S-Y

on g v. H older , 600 F . 3d 1028, 1034 ( 9th C i r . 2010) , and w e de ny th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. T he a ge nc yc orr e c t l yde t e rm i ne d tha tR i ve r a - C e r e z o’ s 2006 c onvi c t i on f or vi ol a t i ng C a l i f

orni aP e na l C ode § 273. 5( a ) i s an a ggr a va t e d f e l onyc r i m e of vi ol e nc e unde r8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 43) ( F ) , w he r e he w a s a c tua l l ys e nt e nc e d t o a t erm of i m pri sonm entof atl ea ston e y ear. See B an uelos-Ayon v. H older , 611 F . 3d 1 0 8 0 , 1 0 8 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( ac o n v ic tio n u n d e rC a l. P e n a l C o d e § 2 7 3 .5 ( a ) is ca teg o rica ll y acr im e o f v io len ce u n d er1 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 (a )) . R iv er a- C er ez o ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e tw o - y e ars e n te n c e h e in c u rr e dc an n o t b e a ttr ib u te dto h is offe nse f or the pu rposes of 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (43)(F ) i s unp er suas i ve. T he agency the r e f or e di d note rri n c onc l udi ng tha tR i ve r a - C e r e z o w a s s t a tut or i l yi ne l i gi bl e f or c an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b ( a ) ( 3 ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1416 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the minimum 

loss ratio required of Medigap policies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 26, 2011 

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. FRANKEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase 

the minimum loss ratio required of Medigap policies. 

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 ‘‘Medigap Medical Loss 

5 Ratio Improvement Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN REQUIRED MEDIGAP LOSS RATIO. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1882(r)(1)(A) of the So8 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ss(r)(1)(A)) is amend9 ed— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1416 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘75 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘85 

2 percent’’; and 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘65 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘80 

4 percent’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 subsection (a) shall apply to policies for policy years begin7 ning on or after January 1, 2014. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60501

Summary Calendar

San Juana Alvarez-De Sauceda, 

Petitioner,

versus

Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A091 374 218

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

San Juana Alvarez-De Sauceda, a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

denying her second motion to reopen and declining to sua sponte reopen the 

proceedings. For the following reasons, the petition for review is denied.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 3, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60501 Document: 00515731141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2021
No. 19-60501

2

Motions to reopen are disfavored. Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 

496 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). The denial of a motion to 

reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 

301 (5th Cir. 2005). This court will affirm the BIA’s decision unless it is 

“capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or 

otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any 

perceptible rational approach.” Id. at 303-04 (internal citation omitted). 

The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and this 

court will not disturb such findings unless the evidence compels a contrary 

conclusion. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2012).

We need not decide whether the BIA properly held that Alvarez-De 

Sauceda’s motion to reopen was untimely and that she was not entitled to 

equitable tolling. Even assuming that her motion was timely, the BIA did not 

abuse its discretion in denying the motion on the alternative ground that 

Alvarez-De Sauceda failed to show that she was entitled to cancellation of 

removal. See Yanez-Pena v. Barr, 952 F.3d 239, 241 (5th Cir. 2020), petition 

for cert. filed (U.S. Apr. 6, 2020) (No. 19-1208). A perfected notice to appear

triggers the stop-time rule when an alien receives all required information, 

whether in one document or more. See id. Moreover, Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 

930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), cert denied, 140 S. Ct. 2718 (2020), forecloses 

Alvarez-De Sauceda’s arguments that her notice to appear did not vest the IJ 

with jurisdiction. See Thompson v. Dallas City Att’y’s Office, 913 F.3d 464, 

467 (5th Cir. 2019). 

Insofar as Alvarez-De Sauceda claims that her notice to appear

violated her right to due process, “no liberty interest exists in a motion to 

reopen, and therefore due process claims are not cognizable in the context of 

reopening proceedings.” Mejia v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 482, 490 (5th Cir. 

2019). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Case: 19-60501 Document: 00515731141 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2021
No. 45190.

#### Protests 42482-K, etc., of Popper Morson Co., Inc., et. al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the records presented the protests were overruled.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Immer Jonathan a/k/a Immer Perez * From the 35 th District Court

a/k/a Immer Najera, of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CR22634

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00320

- CR * November 30 , 2016

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s o pinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
PUBLIC LAW 115–242—SEPT. 18, 2018 132 STAT. 2893 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5772: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115–819 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

July 16, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 4, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–242 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the J. Marvin Jones Federal Building and Courthouse in Amarillo, 

Texas, as the ‘‘J. Marvin Jones Federal Building and Mary Lou Robinson United 

States Courthouse’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The J. Marvin Jones Federal Building and Courthouse located 

at 205 SE 5th Ave., Amarillo, Texas, shall be known and designated 

as the ‘‘J. Marvin Jones Federal Building and Mary Lou Robinson 

United States Courthouse’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

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

or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 

United States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

to be a reference to the ‘‘J. Marvin Jones Federal Building and 

Mary Lou Robinson United States Courthouse’’. 

Approved September 18, 2018. 

Sept. 18, 2018 

[H.R. 5772] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUB LAWS PDF
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



I, David J. Vander Zanden, President and Chief Executive Officer of School Specialty, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the knowledge of the undersigned:



| | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2005 (the Report) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of School Specialty, Inc.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: July 7, 2005



/s/ David J. Vander ZandenDavid J. Vander ZandenPresident and Chief Executive Officer




This certification accompanies
this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed as filed by School Specialty, Inc. for purposes of Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
#### In the Matter of Fernando Torres, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[700 NYS2d 280]

—Peters, J.

Proceeding *733pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, an inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits forgery based upon his participation in a scheme to siphon funds from inmate accounts using forged disbursement forms.* Included among the evidence introduced at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing was the misbehavior report authored by the correction officer who conducted an investigation into the complaints filed by the victims. He testified that petitioner’s handwriting matched the handwriting on several forged disbursement forms and that the names and addresses on many of the forms corresponded to the names and addresses on petitioner’s visitor list and a handwritten list found in his cell.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we find that the misbehavior report and hearing testimony, together with the disbursement forms and other documentary proof linking petitioner to the forgeries, constituted substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see, Matter of Rodriguez v Goord,*261 AD2d 740, *lv denied*93 NY2d 818; *Matter of Early v Coughlin,*207 AD2d 588). Although petitioner denied the conduct charged, this simply presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see, Matter of Flowers v Barkley,*244 AD2d 682, 683). Morever, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased and, in any event, petitioner failed to establish that the outcome of the hearing flowed from the alleged bias *(see, Matter of Lawrence v Headley,*257 AD2d 837). Finally, the Hearing Officer did not err in denying petitioner’s request to call a character witness with no personal knowledge of the incidents giving rise to the charge *(see, Matter of Joyce v Goord,*246 AD2d 926; *Matter of Danaher v Coombe,*242 AD2d 754).

Petitioner’s remaining arguments are unpreserved for our review and, in any event, lack merit.

Cardona, P. J., Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

*

 Petitioner was also charged with, and found not guilty of, possession of stolen property.