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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7565 

To authorize the Seminole Tribe of Florida to lease or transfer certain 

land, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2020 

Mr. SOTO (for himself, Mr. CRIST, Mr. MAST, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. 

DEUTCH, Mr. HASTINGS, and Mr. DIAZ-BALART) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Seminole Tribe of Florida to lease or 

transfer certain land, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED TO VALIDATE CER4 TAIN LAND TRANSACTIONS OF THE SEMI5 NOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi7 sion of law, without further approval, ratification, or au8 thorization by the United States, the Seminole Tribe of 

9 Florida may lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise 

10 transfer all or any part of the interest of the Seminole 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7565 IH

1 Tribe of Florida in any real property that is not held in 

2 trust by the United States for the benefit of the Seminole 

3 Tribe of Florida. 

4 (b) TRUST LAND NOT AFFECTED.—Nothing in this 

5 section— 

6 (1) authorizes the Seminole Tribe of Florida to 

7 lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer all 

8 or any part of an interest in any real property that 

9 is held in trust by the United States for the benefit 

10 of the Seminole Tribe of Florida; or 

11 (2) affects the operation of any law governing 

12 leasing, selling, conveying, warranting, or otherwise 

13 transferring any interest in any real property that is 

14 held in trust by the United States for the benefit of 

15 the Seminole Tribe of Florida. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 02, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 02, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0560. STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS et al. v. MARIANA MARCIAL LOPEZ.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2017CV287840
the custody award was an abuse of discretion. Having considered the 

parties' arguments and the joint appendix, we conclude that appellant's 

arguments lack merit. 

Appellant first argues that the district court's finding that 

respondent was the parent more likely to allow frequent associations and 

a continuing relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent, 

see NRS 125.480(4)(c) (2009) 2, is not supported by substantial evidence. 

This court reviews district court findings of fact for substantial evidence, 

"which is evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to 

sustain a judgment." Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 

242 (2007). Evidence presented at the custody hearing supports the 

district court's findings including testimony that appellant substantially 

delegated his child supervision duties to the child's paternal grandmother, 

concealed his travel from respondent, and resented the child's relationship 

with respondent's husband. See id. Testimony also supports the district 

court's finding that appellant's schedule and history of extensive out-ofstate travel renders an order of joint custody impractical and that 

appellant's travel did not enhance the child's stability and growth. See id. 

Overall, the district court found respondent to be more credible, and this 

court will not reweigh on appeal the credibility of witnesses. Castle v. 

Simmons, 120 Nev. 98, 103, 86 P.3d 1042, 1046 (2004). 

Appellant next argues that the district court abused its 

discretion by awarding respondent primary physical custody, but granting 

appellant visitation that exceeds 40 percent of the days in a year. This 

court in Rivero v. River°, 125 Nev. 410, 216 P.3d 213 (2009), provided as a 

2NRS 125.480 (2009) was repealed and reenacted in NRS Chapter 

125C by 2015 Nev. Stat., Ch. 445 §§ 8, 19. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e 
Pickering 

guideline that "each parent must have physical custody of the child at 

least 40 percent of the time to constitute joint physical custody." 125 Nev. 

at 425-26, 216 P.3d at 224. Although River° provides a 40-percent 

guideline for when joint physical custody may be considered, the child's 

best interest remains paramount, and here the district court made its 

decision based upon the child's best interest and did not abuse its 

discretion by awarding respondent primary physical custody subject to 

appellant's liberal visitation. See Bluestein v. Bluestein, 131 Nev., Adv. 

Op. 14, 345 P.3d 1044, 1048 (2015) (providing that "klegardless of [the 40- 

percent Rivero] guideline, . . in custody matters, the child's best interest 

is paramount"); Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 241 (recognizing "the 

district court's broad discretionary powers to determine child custody 

matters"). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

eadA. tiAP ' J. 

cc: Hon. Kenneth E. Pollock, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge 

Hanratty Law Group 

Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Reno 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Cyrk, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Cyrk, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-75194 and 33-89534) of
our report dated February 14, 1997 on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and the financial statement schedule of Cyrk, Inc. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for the years ended December 31, 1996,
1995 and 1994, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                            Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 1997
1 Introduction and Plan Contents

Petrobras America Inc. Page 1-13 Development Operations Coordination Document Cascade / Chinook Development Project Location Plat 1-2 is provided for the subject well Cascade East Development Well No. 7.1 Introduction and Plan Contents

Page 1-14 Petrobras America Inc. Development Operations Coordination Document Cascade / Chinook Development Project The overall field layout for Phase II of the development plan is presented in Figure 1-3 at a scale which allows a review of all facilities. Figures 1-4 (FPSO detail) and 1-5 (Cascade East Drill Center) present the facilities at a scale which provides a greater level of detail.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Margaret G. JENKINS et al., Relators, v. The Honorable Arthur MAGINNIS, as Judge of the Metropolitan Court, in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-1015.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 13, 1971.

Cohen & Hogan and Alan E. Weinstein, Miami Beach, for relators.

Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Ben Abrams, Asst. State Atty., for respondent.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CAR- ' ROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

*12PER CURIAM.

The relators were originally charged in the criminal court of record by information on June 11, 1971 with violating certain sections of the Florida Statutes relative to unlawful possession of obscene material. On June 15, 1971, they filed their demand for speedy trial. Thereafter, on July 19, 1971, the criminal court of record transferred the cause to the metropolitan court where, on August 3, 1971, they were charged with a violation of the same statute and, additionally, with violations of sections of the Metropolitan Code relating to the same subject matter and arising out of the same episode. On August 18, 1971, the relators moved for a discharge because of the failure to try them within 60 days of their original demand; the metropolitan court refused. The relators instituted a prohibition proceeding in the circuit court and the circuit court has certified to this court the following question:

> “WHETHER OR NOT A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH A MISDEMEANOR IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF RECORD, WHO FILES A TIMELY DEMAND FOR SPEEDY TRIAL IN THAT COURT, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1.191(a) (2) MUST BE TRIED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS EVEN IF THE SAID COURT TRANSFERS THE CASE TO THE METROPOLITAN COURT.”

An examination of Rule 1.191, 33 F.S.A., relating to speedy trials, as found in 245 So.2d 33, and particularly subsection (h) (2) thereof which reads as follows:

> “(h) (2). Nolle Prosequi; Effect.—

> “The intent and effect of this Rule shall not be avoided by the State by entering a nolle prosequi to a crime charged and by prosecuting a new crime grounded on the same conduct or criminal episode, or otherwise by prosecuting new or different charges based on the same conduct or criminal episode whether or not the pending charge is suspended, continued, or is the subject of entry of a nolle pros-equi.”,

leads us to the conclusion that the charges presently pending in the metropolitan court are grounded upon the same conduct or criminal episode as were originally pending in the criminal court of record. Therefore, the question should be answered in the affirmative.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2340

In Re: JOHN S. BREEN; TERESA J. BREEN,

Debtors.

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

JOHN S. BREEN; TERESA J. BREEN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

ZVI GUTTMAN,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:09-cv-02315-RDB; BK-02-58017-RAG)

Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John S. Breen, Teresa J. Breen, Appellants Pro Se. Zvi Guttman, 

LAW OFFICES OF ZVI GUTTMAN, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

John S. Breen and Teresa J. Breen appeal the district 

court’s orders dismissing their appeal from the bankruptcy 

court’s order and denying their motion for reconsideration. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Breen v. Guttman, Nos. 1:09-cv-02315-RDB; BK-02-58017-RAG

(D. Md. Sept. 21, 2009; filed Nov. 3, 2009, entered Nov. 4, 

2009. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 32

 34

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

06/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 201 7

No. 04

- 17

- 00455

- CR

Peter TREVINO, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR3106 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file the appellant’s brief is granted.

We order appellant to file the appellant’s brief by December 29, 2017. Counsel is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a timely motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an ext raordinary circumstance

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of Decembe r, 2017

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### Richard Clemmons MORRISON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43082.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 19, 1973.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 268 So.2d 207.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN J., dissents.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23623-23624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09253]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8286]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``American Encounters: Genre Painting and Everyday 
Life''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``American Encounters: Genre Painting and 
Everyday Life,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within 
the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or 
custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, 
Bentonville, Arkansas, from on or about May 11, 2013, until on or about 
August 12, 2013, the High Museum of Art, Atlanta, Georgia, from on or 
about September 14, 2013, until on or about January 12, 2014, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

[[Page 23624]]

    Dated: April 12, 2013.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-09253 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
From: Anna Myers To: Ungvarsky, John ; Errol Villegas Subject: RE: Publication of 1-hr Ozone Plan Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:51:24 AM


### Hi John,

Yes, the announcement was posted to the District website on August 20, 2013.

Thanks,

Anna

From: Ungvarsky, John [mailto:Ungvarsky.John@epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:47 AM To: Errol Villegas; Anna Myers Subject: Re: Publication of 1-hr Ozone Plan



### Hi Errol and Anna -

Sorry for the follow up question, but can you please confirm that the announcement was actually posted on your web site on Aug 20, 2013? A reply from either of you confirming such is needed (e.g., "Yes, the announcement was posted on our website on August 20, 2013.")

I looked at the attached documents, and unfortunately, neither is clear on when the posting occurred or email sent out. The email from Anna to the WebMaster is a request to have the public hearing (and associated documents) posted on Aug 20, 2013, but it's not proof they were actually put on line that date, and the email from Ross to the list serve does not include a date when it was sent out.

Thanks

John Ungvarsky Environmental Scientist Air Planning Office, Air Division USEPA Region 9

415-972-3963 (primary office)

510-667-9743 (alternate work site)

From: Errol Villegas < errol.villegas@valleyair.org > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:36 AM
To: Ungvarsky, John
Cc: Anna Myers Subject: Publication of 1-hr Ozone PlanHi John –

Attached are two emails that demonstrate the 1-hr Ozone Plan was published for public review at least 30 days before the hearing.

· The first is the internal email chain sent to have the plan published on the District’s website on 8/20/2013.

· The second is the email sent to our list serv ( ozone_plans@lists.valleyair.org ) to coincide with the posting of the document.

Hope this documentation is sufficient. Let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.

Thanks, Errol

Errol Villegas Program Manager - Strategies & Incentives Department San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (559) 230-5806 errol.villegas@valleyair.org
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4804]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP97-247-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

February 21, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 14, 1997, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company (Tennessee), P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Texas 77252, filed in 
Docket No. CP97-247-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 
157.212 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 157.205, 157.212) under 
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to operate existing 
delivery point facilities constructed under the authorization of 
Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) in Hart and 
Marion Counties, Kentucky, for Part 284 transportation services by 
Tennessee, under Tennessee's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. 
CP82-413-000, pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA, all as more fully set 
forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Tennessee proposes to operate the existing facilities, which were 
installed in 1996 and consist of 2 hot taps and approximately 320 feet 
of 12-inch piping at the Monroe SMS Delivery Point in Hart County and 2 
hot taps and measurement facility at the Calvary Delivery Point in 
Marion County to make deliveries of gas transported under Tennessee's 
Part 284 blanket certificate. It is asserted that the proposal would 
enable Tennessee to fully utilize the facilities for all transportation 
under Section 311 of the NGPA and Section 7 of the NGA and would 
increase the transportation options of customers on Tennessee's system.
    It is stated that the proposal is not prohibited by Tennessee's 
existing tariff and would have no adverse impact on Tennessee's peak 
day or annual deliveries. It is further stated that Tennessee has 
sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed changes without 
detriment or disadvantage to Tennessee's existing customers.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4804 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLIING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7982-7983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4296]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-62, RM-9008]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Orofino, ID

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making 
filed on behalf of Topaz Enterprises, Inc. proposing the allotment of 
Channel 253A to Orofino, Idaho, an incorporated community, as its 
second local FM transmission service. Coordinates used for Channel 253A 
at Orofino are 46-28-48 and 116-15-00. As Orofino, Idaho, is located 
within 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the Canadian border, the 
Commission must obtain the concurrence of the Canadian government to 
this proposal.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 7, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before April 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties 
should serve the petitioner and its consultant, as follows: Topaz 
Enterprises, Inc., Attn: Dale A. Ganske, President, 5546-3 Century 
Avenue, Middleton, WI 53562 (Petitioner); and Larry G. Fuss, 
Contemporary Communications, P.O. Box 1787, Cleveland, MS 38732 
(Consultant).


[[Page 7983]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-62, adopted February 
7, 1997, and released February 14, 1997. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, 
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-4296 Filed 2-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P