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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (18-057)]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, and the President's 2004 U.S. Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Policy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces an intersession meeting of the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) Advisory Board. The meeting will be held via teleconference and WebEx.

# DATES:

Monday, August 6, 2018, 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. James J. Miller, Designated Federal Officer, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4417, fax (202) 358-4297, or                         *jj.miller@nasa.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This meeting will be open to the public telephonically and by WebEx. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number at 1-844-467-4685 or the USA local toll number at 1-720-259-7012 passcode: 106724 to participate in this meeting by telephone. The WebEx link is                     *https://nasa.webex.com/​,*                     meeting number is 995 034 805, password is uuU7bDX* (case sensitive). This meeting was agreed to at the 21st session of the National Space-Based PNT Advisory Board, held May 16-17, 2018, in Baltimore, Maryland. The public may follow the discussions by dial-in and/or the web link provided. The agenda includes the following topics:                
    - Finalize and Approve the National Space-Based PNT Advisory Board Topics Paper
    - Finalize and Approve the National Space-Based PNT Advisory Board Memorandum on Spectrum Issues to the National Space-Based PNT Executive Committee

Carol J. Hamilton,

Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. 2018-15753 Filed 7-23-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
261 La. 819

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Frank KENNEDY v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 52420.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 1972.

In re: Frank Kennedy applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Granted. (See order).

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable C. J. Bolin, Jr. Judge of the First Judicial District Court, for the Parish of Caddo, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 12th day of June, 1972, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the *228proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A. M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7881
JOHNATHAN LEE X SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; MARY TARNOWSKI; O. ODUNSI; WILLINDA PURDIE; T. D. HATCHETT; BRENDA WOLFORD; R. REED; A. WILSON; LINDA W. MITCHELL; JANE DOE; C. DAVIS, Warden, K. HAMLIN; VINCENT M. GORE; PAUL OHAI; LINDA B. NHAMBURE; EARLINE HILL, V. APPLEWHITE; WILLIAM HENCEROTH; DAVID BARNES; POWHATAN RECEPTION & CLASSIFICATION CENTER; FRED SCHILLING, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-665) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnathan Lee X Smith, Appellant Pro Se.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Johnathan Lee X Smith appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), for failure to pay the filing fee, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Corr. Med. Servs. , No. CA-03-665 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2003 & Nov. 17, 2003). 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.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XUEBING ZHENG, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 13-72754 

Agency No. A089-899-150 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 11, 2019**

Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: TALLMAN, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Xuebing Zheng, a Chinese national, petitions for review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his applications for asylum and 

withholding of removal. Zheng asserts that his applications should have been 

granted because he demonstrated persecution for other resistance to a coercive 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 8 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

population program as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B). 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Although substantial evidence 

appears to undercut the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) finding of adverse credibility, 

we affirm the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal on the merits 

because Zheng did not establish “other resistance to a coercive population control 

program” required under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B). “[A]n applicant must provide 

evidence of resistance in addition to the spouse’s forced abortion or sterilization” 

to overcome the possibility that the spouse may have not resisted or even 

affirmatively supported the procedure. Nai Yuan Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 

1094 (9th Cir. 2010).

Zheng’s actions do not constitute resistance under our case law. In Ming Xin 

He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014), we held that having children 

earlier than permitted under China’s population control program does not compel a 

finding of resistance. We also held that payment of a fine demonstrates “grudging 

compliance rather than a failure or refusal to comply,” and therefore does not 

constitute resistance. Id. (internal citation omitted). Zheng’s decision to take his 

wife into hiding also falls short of the “overt and persistent defiance” required for a 

showing of resistance. Id. (internal citation omitted).

We decline to resurrect the per se rule granting asylum to spouses of 

individuals who underwent forced abortion or sterilization, rejected by the 
3 

Attorney General in Matter of J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 520 (BIA 2008), in the proper 

exercise of his authority pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i).

PETITION DENIED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, David M. Sindelar, as Chief Executive Officer of International Wire Group,
Inc., (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1)  the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
          2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
          "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



                                        INTERNATIONAL WIRE GROUP, INC.


Dated:  May 15, 2003                    By:      /s/ DAVID M. SINDELAR
                                           ------------------------------------
                                        Name:    David M. Sindelar
                                        Title:   Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to International Wire Group, Inc. and will be retained by International
Wire Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6030

WILLIAM T. SIMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Southampton Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-99-578-AM) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 2, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.William T. Sims, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on December 6, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on December 14, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray , 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: William T. Sims seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Sims v. Warden , No. CA-99-578-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 14, 1999). * We deny Sims’ request to order the Virginia Department of Corrections to transfer him to another facility. 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  audited  financial  statements for the twelve months ended August
31,  1997 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                  1,711
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                           4,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,752
<PP&E>                                 12,870
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         18,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     297
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             18,644
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           18,941
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        2,076
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         1,477
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     1,477
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            1,477
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            1.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                            1.63
        

</TABLE>
#### Adam DEVILLE v. TOWNSEND BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.

No. 54192.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1973.

In re: Townsend Brothers Construction Company and The Travelers Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Avoyelles. 284 So.2d 110.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law, only factual issues are presented.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       12,984
<SECURITIES>                                    185
<RECEIVABLES>                                15,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                  2,844
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             28,817
<PP&E>                                       14,801
<DEPRECIATION>                               10,289
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               36,960
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        26,894
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     74,612
<OTHER-SE>                                  (67,901)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 36,960
<SALES>                                       4,019
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             15,023
<CGS>                                         1,014
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                11,384
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              6,962
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (4,205)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (4,205)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (4,205)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.18)
        


</TABLE>
II 

Calendar No. 137 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1315 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enforcing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 17, 2013 

Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

JULY 18, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enforcing 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the 

Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 

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 ‘‘Keep the IRS Off Your 

5 Health Care Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1315 PCS

1 (1) On May 10, 2013, the Internal Revenue 

2 Service admitted that it singled out advocacy groups, 

3 based on ideology, seeking tax-exempt status. 

4 (2) This action raises pertinent questions about 

5 the agency’s ability to implement and oversee the 

6 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 

7 Law 111–148) and the Health Care and Education 

8 Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–152). 

9 (3) This action could be an indication of future 

10 Internal Revenue Service abuses in relation to the 

11 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the 

12 Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 

13 2010, given that it is their responsibility to enforce 

14 a key provision, the individual mandate. 

15 (4) Americans accept the principle that pa16 tients, families, and doctors should be making med17 ical decisions, not the Federal Government. 

18 SEC. 3. PROHIBITING ENFORCEMENT OF PPACA AND 

19 HCERA. 

20 The Secretary of the Treasury, or any delegate of the 

21 Secretary, shall not implement or enforce any provisions 

22 of or amendments made by the Patient Protection and Af23 fordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) or the Health 

24 Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public 

25 Law 111–152). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 137 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1315 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enReconciliation Act of 2010. Care Act and the Health Care and Education forcing the Patient Protection and Affordable 

JULY 18, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### CULLIGAN WATER CONDITIONING v. MORGAN.

No. 36147.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
Argued September 15,

affirmed December 12, 1969

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*GALBERT, *Defendant,*and SAMUEL J. BIRDEN, *Appellant.*

462 P. 2d 452

*Dennis W. Slcarstad,*Portland, argued the cause for appellant. On the briefs were Lent, York, Paulson & Bullock, Portland.

*Billy L. Williamson,*Deputy District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him *294on the "brief whs George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, Portland.

BEAN CHFIELD, J.

The defendant and another man were charged with the rape of a 19-year-old girl. The jury returned verdicts of guilty against both defendants. Defendant Birdeii appeals. He will herein be referred to as the defendant.

Defendant claims three errors on the part of the trial court. The first was that the court “failed and refused” to allow defendant’s counsel to read the presentence investigation report.. The second claim was that the court erred in senténcing the defendant to five years in the penitentiary as a deterrent to others. The third claim of error is that Art. I, § 11 of the Oregon Constitution is contrary to the U. S. Constitution and void in that it does not require a unanimous jury verdict.

In answer to the first assignment of error, we find that defendant did not request the court to permit his counsel to read the pre-sentence report.

With regard to the second assignment of error, it is evident from the remarks made by the trial judge at the time of sentencing that elements of rehabilitation, punishment, deterrence to. others and the protection of society were in his mind at the time he imposed sentence. He had already imposed upon the co-defendant a héáviér sentence than that upon "this defendant. It was within the discretion of thé trial judge to sentence the defendant to a term of five years, in view of the statutory possibility of 20 years. The sentence was not disproportionate to the offense. *295
      *Phenix v. Gladden,*250 Or 424, 443 P2d 176 (1968); *State v.*Shannon, 242 Or 404, 405, 409 P2d 911 (1966).

Whatever may eventually he the rule under the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Oregon permits ten of the twelve jurors to reach a verdict. *Duncan v. Louisiana,*391 US 145, 88 S Ct 1444, 20 L Ed2d 491, reh den 392 US 947 (1968), upon which defendant relies for his third assignment of error, is not applicable to this case. In *Carcerano v. Gladden,*392 US 631, 88 S Ct 2093, 20 L Ed2d 1308, the United States Supreme Court ruled that *Duncan*was to he given only prospective application. *Duncan*was decided May 20, 1968, while the judgment in this case was entered February 2, 1968.

The judgment is affirmed.