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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7898

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRYAN TERRELL DIXON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:05-cr-00210-BO-3; 5:12-cv-00204-BO)

Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 23, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Devon L. Donahue, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Bryan Terrell Dixon seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Dixon 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Dominick A. BRETTI, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-425.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 26, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibits 8.1. List of significant subsidiaries of Pampa Energía S.A. 1) Generation Business Inversora Nihuiles S.A. Inversora Diamante S.A. Inversora Piedra Buena S.A. Central Térmica Loma de la Lata S.A. Hidroeléctrica Los Nihuiles S.A. Hidroeléctrica Diamante S.A. Central Piedra Buena S.A. Central Térmica Güemes S.A. Energía Distribuida S.A. Pampa Comercializadora S.A. 2) Transmission Business Transelec Argentina S.A. Citelec S.A. Transener S.A. Transba S.A. 3) Distribution Business IEASA S.A. EASA S.A. Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A. 4) Oil Business Petrolera Pampa S.A. 5) Gas Business PEPCA S.A. Compañía de Inversiones de Energía S.A. TGS S.A.


---



6) Other Business Bodega Loma de la Lata S.A. All of the subsidiaries mentioned above have their jurisdiction of incorporation in the Republic of Argentina.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3764 

To extend and authorize annual appropriations for the United States 

Commission on International Religious Freedom through fiscal year 2026. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2024 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. COONS, and Mr. 

LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To extend and authorize annual appropriations for the 

United States Commission on International Religious 

Freedom through fiscal year 2026. 

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 ‘‘United States Commis5 sion on International Religious Freedom Reauthorization 

6 Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3764 IS

1 SEC. 2. UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL 

2 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 

3 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

4 207(a) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 

5 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6435(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘2023 

6 and 2024’’ and inserting ‘‘2025 and 2026’’. 

7 (b) EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION.—Section 209 of 

8 the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 

9 U.S.C. 6436) is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 

10 2024’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2026’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1692 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1692

To extend and expand the Wildfire Hurricane Indemnity Program to cover 
       losses due to high winds, polar vortexes, and hailstorms.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2021

 Mr. Jackson (for himself, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Brady, Mr. Arrington, Mr. 
Burgess, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Weber of Texas, Ms. Van Duyne, 
  Mr. Pfluger, Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, Mr. Babin, and Mr. Fallon) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                              Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend and expand the Wildfire Hurricane Indemnity Program to cover 
       losses due to high winds, polar vortexes, and hailstorms.

    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 ``Rehabilitating Economic Success 
Through Overcoming Rural Emergencies Act'' or the ``RESTORE Act''.

SEC. 2. USDA WILDFIRE HURRICANE INDEMNITY PROGRAM EXTENSION AND 
              EXPANSION.

    The Secretary of Agriculture shall make payments for necessary 
expenses related to losses of crops (including losses due to high winds 
or derechos, polar vortexes (including losses to dairy cooperatives due 
to power outages or curtailments), hailstorms, freeze, and all losses 
eligible for assistance under subpart O of part 760 of title 7, Code of 
Federal Regulations, including any drought losses in 2020 and 2021, 
notwithstanding the limitations of section 791(b) of title VII of 
division B of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020) 
pursuant to title I of the Additional Supplemental Appropriations for 
Disaster Relief Act, 2019 (Public Law 116-20), as amended by section 
116 of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-59) and 
as further amended by subsection (c) of section 791 of the Further 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-94) for crop 
losses in calendar year 2020 and calendar year 2021, except that 
payments for losses incurred in 2020 and 2021 shall be--
            (1) in the case of producers, subject only to the 
        limitations provided under section 760.1507 of title 7, Code of 
        Federal Regulations; and
            (2) in the case of dairy cooperatives, shall be paid in the 
        same manner and subject to the same limitations as cooperative 
        processors under section 791(c) of title VII of division B of 
        the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 
        116-94).
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSRS

 

Investment Company Act file number  811-07507

 

DWS Investments VIT Funds

 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

 (Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code)

 

Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code: (212) 454-7190

 

Paul Schubert

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

 

| Date of fiscal year end: | 12/31 |
|--------------------------|-------|

 

| Date of reporting period: | 06/30/08 |
|---------------------------|----------|

 

 

**ITEM 1.**           **REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS**

 

 

----
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-617 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and BULGARIA 

Signed at Washington January 4, 2008 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
BULGARIA 

Scientific Cooperation 

 Agreement signed at Washington 

 January 4, 2008; 

 Entered into force June 17, 2008. 

 With annexes.
EXHIBIT 10.5.12

                                                 December 26, 2002


MOVIE STAR, INC.
1115 Broadway
New York, NY 10010

Re:      FINANCING AGREEMENT


     It is mutually agreed that the Financing Agreement entered into between us
dated April 24, 1996, as amended or supplemented (the "Financing Agreement") is
amended effective December 26, 2002 as follows:

     1.   The following shall be added to Section 8.1, after subsection (f)
          thereof, as a new subsection:

          "(g) the issuer of any insurance policy on the life of Melvin Knigin
          or Saul Pomerantz which insurance policy has been assigned to Lender,
          contests (i) any portion of such policy or (ii) any claim made under
          such policy."

     2.   The following shall be added as a new sentence between the second and
          third sentences of Section 8.1:

          "Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Default arising solely by reason of
          subsection (g) of this Section 8.1 can be cured by Borrower creating
          and maintaining with Lender minimum of $2,500,000 of excess
          availability under the formulae for availability pursuant to Section
          2.1 hereof."

     Except as hereinafter specifically set forth the Financing Agreement, shall
continue unmodified.


                                              ROSENTHAL & ROSENTHAL, INC.

                                              BY: /s/ Jerry Sandak
                                                 ------------------------
                                                 JERRY SANDAK
                                                 Senior Executive Vice President


THE FOREGOING IS ACKNOWLEDGED:
MOVIE STAR, INC.

By:  /s/ Thomas Rende
   --------------------
   THOMAS RENDE
   Chief Financial Officer
#### William Floyd HOSEY, Raymond Anthony Panzar and Theodore Augustine Papa, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. M-205— M-210.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 23, 1970.

Barksdale, Tucker & Worley, Pensacola, for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

These six consolidated cases having been orally argued before the court, the briefs *460and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgments of the lower court appealed from herein are affirmed. See Lanier v. State, 226 So.2d 37 (Fla.App.1969).

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### Walker G. Louthan, Respondent, *vs.*L. G. Caldwell, Appellant.

1. *Drastics, civil, pleading*— Answer—Demurrer—Judgment *by defaidt,*— It is irregular to enter judgment by default after answer and demurrer to tbe answer.

*Jlpjyeal from Marion Circziit Court.*

*MeCabe,*for Appellant.

*Dryden fy*Dryden, for Respondent.

The appellant waived and released the errors complained of, if any, and expressly assented to the judgment in the cause by appearing in said court and moving for a reduction in the amount of the judgment.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action on a promissory note.

. The defendants by an amended answer attempted to set up usury, but from the answer the usury appears to have been paid.

There was a demurrer to this answer because it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. This demurrer was sustained but no final judgment was rendered on the demurrer. The entry was that the demurrer be sustained. After this entry and during the same term a judgment by default was rendered and made final, and the defendants then filed a motion to set aside what they called a judgment on the demurrer which motion was overruled but no exceptions were saved. Afterwards the defendant filed a motion to correct the judgment as rendered, alleging that there were credits that had not been allowed, and that the judgment as rendered was for too large an amount. This motion was sustained and the judgment was accordingly corrected as desired by the defendants.

The defendants then made affidavit for appeal and filed bond for same and the appeal was granted.

I do not see why this appeal is here, there seems to be no error that we can pass upon. It was irregular to enter judgment by default after answer and demurrer to the answer! *122But this point is not saved so as to be passed on here. Besides the defendants on their own motion had the judgment corrected so as to represent the proper amount, which they considered they owed.

The action of the Court in rectifying the judgment on the defendant’s own motion released the error, if any, in the prior judgment.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

The other Judges concur.
[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:****Proceedings of the firstbiennial Canada/U.S. Observer Program Workshop [electronic resource] : Seattle,Washington, 10-12 March 1998**
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.13/2:NMFS-AFSC-101

Item Number:0208-C-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000730855
 
Parts: 0102
 
April 1, 2020
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1212 CAF 14-01584** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MICHELE DAVIS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KEVIN L. WILLIAMS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

LOVALLO & WILLIAMS, BUFFALO (TIMOTHY R. LOVALLO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Deanne M. Tripi, J.), entered July 15, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order revoked a suspended sentence and committed respondent to jail for a period of six months.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order of commitment revoking a suspended sentence and committing him to jail for a period of six months. Inasmuch as respondent has served his sentence, his appeal from the order of commitment is moot ( see Matter of Ontario County Support Collection Unit v Falconer , ___ AD3d ___, ___ [Oct. 9, 2015]). To the extent that respondent contends that his appeal is not moot because “a finding of contempt [and willful violation] may have significant collateral consequences,” we note that he failed to appeal from the order finding him in willful violation of the order requiring him to pay child support ( see Matter of St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit v Pratt , 24 AD3d 1050, 1050). Similarly, respondent’s remaining contentions that his support obligations should be reduced and his arrears capped were not addressed by the order appealed from and, in any event, are improperly raised for the first time on appeal ( see Matter of Kasprowicz v Osgood , 101 AD3d 1760, 1761, lv denied 20 NY3d 863; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Turner , 99 AD3d 1244, 1245).

Entered: November 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 10.11





Agreement on behalf of equity holders




Party A:  Jinlin Guo




Address: Xixiang JiaHua Park E-16 Bao An District Shenzhen Guangdong




ID number: 43292819700811001X




Party B: Kai Guo




Address: 2nd class Shatian Cun Hongfa Xu Xiantian Hunan




ID number: 432928198508265093




After friendly consultation, the two sides reached the following consensus:




1 Commissioned content:




Party B shall on behalf of Party A to hold the 726,250 shares of AIVtech International Group Co., Ltd, and on behalf of Party A to exercise the relevant rights of shareholders. Party B agrees to entrust voluntarily.




2 Delegated authority:




Party B should exercise relevant rights of shareholders in his/her own name, be named on the register of shareholders, take part in the company activities, collect dividends or bonus on behalf of Party A, attend the shareholders meeting and vote.




3 Rights and obligations:




Party A as the actual investors, has the right to practice and get the appropriate return on investment , Party B does not enjoy the right to dispose of any gain formed by the investment .




In the commissioning period, Party A has the right to transfer the relevant shares to himself or to the third person appointed by himself. Party B shall unconditionally agree. In the commissioning period, Party A shall bear the related costs, taxes and stockholder registration fee which generated from the activity of Party B on behalf of Party A.




Party A as the actual stock owner, has the right to supervise and redress fiduciary improper Behavior of Party B, and request Party B to compensate for the losses caused by improper Behavior.




Settlement of disputes




When the disputes happen during the performance of this Agreement, Party A and Party B should have a consultation with each other first, if still can not settle the disputes, then should prosecute through the People's Court of Shenzhen City.









Others




1.           This Agreement in duplicate, one belongs to Party A, the other belongs  to Party B, this two agreements have the same legal effect.




2.           This Agreement become effective since the day that both Party signed the Agreement.




Signature:




/s/ Jinlin Guo




/s/ Kai Guo




2010-5-5
Grant of Extension of Time PAGE 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23
- 0187 IN THE MATTER OF L. A.W., A Youth in Need of Care. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s m oti on for extension of time, and good cause appearing therefore, Appellant D.J.C. is granted an extension of time until June 30 , 2023 to prepare, serve, and file the Opening Brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 26 2023

05/26/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0087
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27770]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Supplemental Consent Decree Pursuant to the 
Clean Air Act

    In accordance with the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7413 (g), and 
Departmental Policy, 28 CFR Sec. 50.7, notice is hereby given that a 
proposed Supplemental Consent Decree in Concerned Citizens for Nuclear 
Safety, Inc. & Patrick Jerome Chavez v. United States Dep't of Energy & 
Siegfried S. Hecker, Civil No. 94-1039 M (D.N.M.), was lodged with the 
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on 
September 26, 1997. Final approval and entry of the proposed 
Supplemental Consent Decree are subject to the requirements of Section 
113(g) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7413(g), and the provisions 
of 28 CFR Sec. 50.7.
    In this case, Plaintiffs CCNS and Patrick Chavez filed suit against 
Defendants alleging that Los Alamos National Laboratory (``LANL'') is 
not in full compliance with the national emission standard for 
radionuclides at DOE facilities, set forth at 40 CFR 61.90-61.97 
(``Subpart H''). On March 20, 1997, the court entered a Consent Decree 
resolving Plaintiffs' claims. One of the provisions of the Consent 
Decree requires DOE to fund up to four independent compliance audits of 
LANL. The Decree also provided for DOE to pay CCNS' expert and 
attorneys' fees incurred in monitoring compliance with the Consent 
Decree, including monitoring the independent audits, pursuant to the 
attorneys' fees provisions of the Clean Air Act.
    On July 24, 1997, CCNS filed a Motion to Enforce Consent Decree, by 
which CCNS sought to resolve a dispute with DOE regarding the 
appropriate scope of activities to monitor the first independent audit. 
CCNS and DOE have reached a settlement of this motion, which takes the 
form of a proposed Supplemental Consent Decree.
    The Department of Justice will receive written comments relating to 
the proposed Supplemental Consent Decree for a period of 30 days from 
the date of publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to 
Alan D. Greenberg, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Defense 
Section, 999 18th Street, Suite 945, Denver, CO 80202, should refer to 
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Inc. & Patrick Jerome Chavez v. 
United States Department of Energy & Siegfried S. Hecker, Civil No. 94-
1039 M (D.N.M.), and should also make reference to DJ# 90-5-2-1-1749A.
    The Supplemental Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's 
Office, Untied States District Court for the District of New Mexico, 
500 Gold Avenue, 10th Floor, Albuquerque, NM 87102 or at the Los Alamos 
National Laboratory Reading Room, 1350 Central Avenue, Suite 101, Los 
Alamos, NM 87544, ph. (505) 665-2122 or (800) 343-2342.
Letitia J. Grishaw,
Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environmental and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-27770 Filed 10-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
Exhibit (g)(i)

 

 

 

AMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER CUSTODIAN AGREEMENT

 

 

Dated as of

 

October 17, 2008

 

 

----
Grant of Extension of Time

 PAGE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0187

IN THE MATTER OF 

L.A.W.,

A Youth in Need of Care.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing therefore, Appellant D.J.C. is granted an extension of 

time until June 30, 2023 to prepare, serve, and file the Opening Brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 26 2023

05/26/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0087
Exhibit (k)(3)

 

----