alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 REFU G I O PA Y A N - M O RA LES, 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- 72898 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 183- 484 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 S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B e f o r e : S I L V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN .R . S M I T H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . R ef ug i o P ay an-M oral es , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew o f th e B o ar do f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’ (“B IA ”) o rd ersu stain in g th e g o v ern m en t’ s appe a l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on gr ant i ng he rappl i c a t i on f or c an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e 

# FI LED SEP 30 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 72898 2 r e v ie w d e n o v o q u e s tio n s o f law . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 4 0 0 F .3 d7 8 5 , 7 9 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e d e n yin p art an dd is m is s in p art th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . C o n tr aryto P ay an - M o r a le s ’ c o n te n tio n , th e B I A u s e dth e p r o p e rs tan d ar din its h ar d s h ip d e te rm in a tio n . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 ( d ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; se e al so Fi gu er oa v. Mukasey , 54 3 F . 3d 48 7, 49 7-98 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( agencym ustcond ucta “ futureo r ie n te dan a ly s is ” in d e te rm in in g w h e th e r“r e m o v a l w o u ld r es u lt i n an except i on al an de x tr e m e lyu n u s u a l h ar d s h ip to th e c itiz e n - c h ild r e n ” ) ( e m p h a s is in th e o r ig in a l) . W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B IA ’ s di sc re t i on ary det erm i nat i on that P ay an- M or a l e s f

a i l e d t o s how e xc e pt i ona l and e xtr e m e l yunus ua l har ds hi p t o a q u a lif y in g r e la tiv e . See M

art i nez-R osas v. G on zales , 42 4 F . 3d 92 6, 93 0 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D in p a r t ; D I S M I S S E D in p a r t .
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-12541

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-20381-KMW

MICHAEL ROZIER, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, 

 Respondents - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 27, 2019)

Case: 17-12541 Date Filed: 08/27/2019 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We GRANT Rozier’s petition for panel rehearing, vacate our prior opinion 

in this case, and replace it with this one. Since our last opinion issued, this Court 

issued a precedential decision in Paez v. Secretary, Florida Department of 

Corrections, No. 16-15705 (11th Cir. July 31, 2019). There, as here, a state inmate 

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that looked to 

be untimely. And there, as here, the district court sua sponte dismissed the petition 

without ordering a response from the State. 

In Paez, the Court held that district courts “must order the State to respond, 

even if the petition appears untimely[,]” whenever the petition “states a legally 

sufficient claim for relief.” Id., slip op. at 2. The Court explained that “[t]his 

response need not be an answer on the merits” but may instead “take whatever 

form the district court deems appropriate, including a motion to dismiss on 

timeliness grounds.” Id. Because the district court in Paez ordered no State 

response, this Court vacated and remanded for the district court to order the State 

to respond to the petition. Id., slip op. at 16. 

To maintain harmony among this Court’s decisions, we will follow Paez

here. We thus VACATE the dismissal of Rozier’s § 2254 petition and REMAND 

Case: 17-12541 Date Filed: 08/27/2019 Page: 2 of 3 
3

for further proceedings consistent with Paez. Our ruling does not prejudice the 

ability of the Secretary to raise the timeliness of Rozier’s petition on remand. 

Case: 17-12541 Date Filed: 08/27/2019 Page: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and statements of cash
flows as reported in the Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                      APR-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                  36,862
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           27,717
<ALLOWANCES>                                             3,785
<INVENTORY>                                             62,141
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       129,543
<PP&E>                                                 188,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                          98,675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         245,564
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   63,066
<BONDS>                                                 99,550
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                    93
<OTHER-SE>                                              37,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           245,564
<SALES>                                                 64,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        65,685
<CGS>                                                   45,618
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           45,618
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        16,084
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       2,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          1,914
<INCOME-TAX>                                               724
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      1,190
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                             1,190
<EPS-BASIC>                                              .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              .14



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2.2**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Robert N. Hoglund, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2005, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-Q”) 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 that the information contained inthe Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: November 2, 2005
1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1627

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Paul Lopez-Aguilar, * District of Nebraska. * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 22, 2005 Filed: December 28, 2005

___________ Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
After Paul Lopez-Aguilar pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methampheta mine, and possessing a firearm during a drugtrafficking crime, see21 U.S.C. § 846; 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), the district court 1 sentenced him to 228 months in prison, fo llowed by 5 years of supervised release. Lopez-Aguilar did not appeal. The government later filed a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Lopez-Agu ilar’s sentence based on his substantial-2- assistance, and the district court reducedhis sentence from 228 months to 135 months imprisonment. Lopez-Aguilar appeals, arguing in a brief filed under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), that the district court abused its discretion by not imposing an even lower senten ce. We conclude that the district court’s refusal to depart further is unreviewable. See United States v. Coppedge , 135 F.3d 598, 599 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (challenge to extent of Rule 35(b) reduction held unreviewable, because appeal was not based on any criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)); cf. United States v. Noe , 411 F.3d 878, 885 (8th Cir.) (extent of downward departure is not revi ewable), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 184 (2005); United States v. Williams , 324 F.3d 1049, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (refusal to depart is not reviewable unless de fendant makes substantial show ing that court’s decision was based on unconstitutional motive). After reviewing the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

West Virginia

Treasury approves West Virginia’s plan to invest $130.2 million of CPF 

funding in broadband infrastructure projects that will provide highquality internet to locations that lack access to adequate service.

 For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information

▪ Program Summary: $130.2 million for Broadband Infrastructure (100% of CPF program allocation)

▪ Locations to Be Served: 20,000 (estimated)

▪ Program Description: Three separate grant programs will focus

on funding last-mile connections for locations currently without 

access to internet at 25/3 Mbps speeds or better. Each program

is designed to enable funding to reach areas that are hardest to

serve due to low population density, rurality, or other factors. 

‒ The programs are designed to fund projects that provide

service that reliably meets or exceeds 100/100 Mbps speeds.

‒ The programs will require service providers to participate in the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity 

Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy for low-income families.

West Virginia will operate three distinct programs that CPF funds will support:

‒ Line Extension Advancement and Development Program (LEAD) funds extensions of existing lastmile broadband networks that can be constructed quickly.

‒ Major Broadband Project Strategies Program (MBPS) funds larger-scale projects designed to 

serve large numbers of eligible addresses.

‒ GigReady provides local governments with the opportunity to utilize ARPA State and Local Fiscal 

Recovery Funds as matching funds for CPF projects, provides technical assistance, and makes 

implementation funding available.

▪ Key State Contacts: West Virginia Department of Economic Development, West Virginia State 

Broadband Office, and West Virginia Broadband Enhancement Council

West Virginia Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

As reported by West Virginia, 

estimates show that 

investments made using the 

Capital Projects Fund will 

serve 10% of locations still 

lacking high-speed internet 

access in the state.
July 16 2014 Memorandum Subject: July 15, 2014 Meeting Between QEP Resources, Inc. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) From: Chris Stoneman, Policy Advisor



## ~ **~** Outreach and Information Division, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) To: Docket- EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151 This memorandum to docketprovides a briefsummary ofthe main discussionpoints made at the subject meeting during the commentperiod for the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR): "Managing Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Production in Indian Country." (79 Federal Register 32502, June 5, 2104) Meeting details: When: July 15, 2014; 10:00- 11 :00 a.m. ET Where: EPA Offices, RTP, NC Participants: LauraMcKelvey, EPA, OAQPS Chris Stoneman, EPA, OAQPS Mary Tom Kissell, EPA, OAQPS Deirdre Rothery, EPA, Region 8 Claudia Smith, EPA, Region 8 Ron LePlatt, QEP Mike Smith, QEP Dick Wilson, National Environmental Strategies, Inc. During the meeting, EPAprovided an overview ofseveral key aspects ofthe minor source general permit program for Indian country and the recently-issued ANPR for New Source review (NSR) minor source oil and natural gas activity in Indian country. During the course ofthe meeting QEP raised several questions that were discussed:

• Need for a post-constructionpermitting approach that allows industry to understand the emissions at a given well before permitting requirements kick in; • The use ofpermits byrule as an approach for permittingminor sources in the oil and natural gas sector in Indian country that does not entail approval orpublic commentprocesses; • Permittingrequirements that are reservation specific giventhe varying nature of each basin/play and emissions associated with extraction; • Addressing existing sources through an effort other than permitting such as the nonattainment process; • Higher costs associated with retrofitting older wells with control equipment;**-------~•~~TL-Jhc.ue~Ju..lS.3l.e.._,ou.f'--'s;:yynthetic** minor sources in the oil and natural gas sector; • Howto handle the requirements ofthe Endangered Species Act/National Historic Preservation Act in an oil and natural gas permit; • Role ofthe Bureau ofIndian Affairs and the Bureau ofLand Management inthe approval ofoil and gas activities in Indian country and onpublic lands; • Howto structure a general permit/permit by rule that must cover several different, diverse parts ofIndian country, and different basin characteristics with oil and natural gas activity; • Regulations inwestern states such as Wyoming that contain requirements and approaches thatwe may want to consider at the federal level; and • QEP oil and gas operation inIndian country. The EPA answered basic questions about the content oftheproposed Bundle #1 proposal and ANPR and offeredto be available for further discussions and/or exchanges of technical information ifQEP desires. This memorandum will be filed inthe docket for the proposed rule and will be available for public review.
1

Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds

Allocations to Non-Entitlement Units of Local Government

May 10, 2021

The American Rescue Plan Act (the Act) established the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery 

Fund and Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CLFRF), which provide a combined $350 

billion in assistance to eligible state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments to help turn the 

tide on the pandemic, address its economic fallout, and lay the foundation for a strong and 

equitable recovery. This document describes Treasury’s methodology for allocating the funds to 

non-entitlement units of local government. 

Allocation methodology 

The CLFRF provides $19.53 billion for non-entitlement units of local government (NEUs), to be 

paid by Treasury to states for distribution to NEUs within each state. 

The Act specifies that each state shall receive “an amount which bears the same proportion to 

such reserved amount as the total population of all areas that are non-metropolitan cities in the 

State bears to the total population of all areas that are non-metropolitan cities in all such States.” 

To calculate the amount to be paid to a state for distribution to its NEUs, Treasury subtracted the 

population of metropolitan cities in a state from the total population in the state. 

The Act requires Treasury to use the latest population available data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau. At the time of publication of the Interim Final Rule, population data for states is 

available for 2020, but population data for metropolitan cities is only publicly available for 2019. 

To avoid mixing Census vintages and ensure that the components of the formula sum to the total, 

Treasury used 2019 data for state and metropolitan city population.
Order entered Ju ly 1 , 2022

In The



### Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00642

- CV

IN RE ERIC GORMLY

, Relator

O r iginal Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Co urt

Colli n County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 07217

O RDER

Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Garcia

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for

writ of mandamus.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2150 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2150

 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
  to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2021

 Mr. Langevin (for himself and Mr. Cicilline) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
  to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

    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 ``Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness 
Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. ADDITION OF RHODE ISLAND TO THE MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT 
              COUNCIL.

    Section 302(a)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(1)(B)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``Rhode Island,'' after ``States of'';
            (2) by inserting ``Rhode Island,'' after ``except North 
        Carolina,'';
            (3) by striking ``21'' and inserting ``23''; and
            (4) by striking ``13'' and inserting ``14''.
                                 <all>
```
HHF Florida Date: October 1, 2018

A-1

Eligible Entity Information:

SCHEDULE A

BASIC INFORMATION

Name of the Eligible Entity: Florida Housing Finance Corporation1

Corporate or other organizational form: a public corporation and a public body corporate

and politic, established and existing under the 

Florida Housing Finance Corporation Act, as 

amended, Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes.

Jurisdiction of organization: Florida 

Notice Information:

HFA Information:

Name of HFA: Florida Housing Finance Corporation1

Organizational form: a public corporation and a public body corporate 

and politic, established and existing under the 

Florida Housing Finance Corporation Act, as 

amended, Chapter 420m, Part V, Florida 

Statutes.

Date of Application: April 16, 2010

Date of Action Plan: September 1, 2010 

Notice Information:

Program Participation Cap: $1,136,616,680.00

Portion of Program Participation Cap

Representing Original HHF Funds: $418,000,000.00

Portion of Program Participation Cap

Representing Unemployment HHF Funds: $238,864,755.00

1 References in the Agreement to the term “HFA” shall mean the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, in its capacity 

as HFA as such term is used in the Agreement; and references in the Agreement to the term “Eligible Entity” shall 

mean the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, in its capacity as Eligible Entity as such term is used in the 

Agreement.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Agreement, (A) for purposes of Section 4(G) thereof, annual 

audited financial statements shall be due no later than one hundred eighty (180) days after the end of Florida 

Housing Finance Corporation’s fiscal year, and (B) for purposes of Section 7 thereof, the powers and authority 

of Florida Housing Finance Corporation shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the 

State of Florida.
HHF Florida Date: October 1, 2018

A-2

Rounds 1-4 Funding Allocation: $1,057,839,136.00

Round 5 Funding Allocation: $78,777,544.00

Program Funds: $1,043,943,276.69

Permitted Expenses: $92,673,403.31

Closing Date: June 23, 2010

First Amendment Date: September 23, 2010

Second Amendment Date: September 29, 2010

Third Amendment Date: December 16, 2010

Fourth Amendment Date: March 31, 2011

Fifth Amendment Date: May 30, 2012

Sixth Amendment Date: September 28, 2012

Seventh Amendment Date: April 25, 2013

Eighth Amendment Date: September 20, 2013

Ninth Amendment Date: July 11, 2014

Tenth Amendment Date: January 29, 2015

Eleventh Amendment Date: April 21, 2015

Twelfth Amendment Date: September 29, 2015

Thirteenth Amendment Date: May 3, 2016

Fourteenth Amendment Date: August 31, 2016

Fifteenth Amendment Date: November 18, 2016

Eligible Entity Depository Account Information: See account information set forth in the

Depository Account Control Agreement 

between Treasury and Eligible Entity 

regarding the HHF Program.
HHF Florida Date: October 1, 2018

A-3