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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1376 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1376

To restore immunization and sibling age exemptions for children adopted 
 by United States citizens under the Hague Convention on Intercountry 
       Adoption to allow their admission into the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 25, 2009

Ms. Klobuchar (for herself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Feingold, and 
  Mr. Durbin) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To restore immunization and sibling age exemptions for children adopted 
 by United States citizens under the Hague Convention on Intercountry 
       Adoption to allow their admission into the United States.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM VACCINATION DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT.

    Section 212(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking ``section 
101(b)(1)(F),'' and inserting ``subparagraph (F) or (G) of section 
101(b)(1);''.

SEC. 2. SIBLING ADOPTIONS.

    Section 101(b)(1)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(G)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(iii) subject to the same provisos as in clause 
                (i), if the child--
                            ``(I) is a natural sibling of a child 
                        described in clause (i), subparagraph (E)(i), 
                        or subparagraph (F)(i);
                            ``(II) has been adopted abroad, or is 
                        coming to the United States for adoption, by 
                        the adoptive parent (or prospective adoptive 
                        parent) or parents of the sibling described in 
                        clause (i), subparagraph (E)(i), or 
                        subparagraph (F)(i); and
                            ``(III) is otherwise described in clause 
                        (i), except that the child is younger than 18 
                        years of age at the time a petition is filed on 
                        his or her behalf for classification as an 
                        immediate relative under section 201(b).''.
                                 <all>
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.11 MB)

Tags:Royal Cline

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (6.43 MB)

Tags:DSCC, DLA Land and Maritime, Defense Supply Center Columbus, Defense Logistics Agency, Navy Regatta

Photo by:VIRIN: 

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

The Honorable Edward C. Reed, Jr., Senior District Judge for the U.S. ***

District Court for Nevada, Reno, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD JONES; et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

 v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 09-55014

D.C. No. 2:03-cv-01142-R-RNB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 26, 2011** 

Pasadena, California

Before: RYMER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and REED, Senior District

Judge.*** 

FILED

JAN 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 Each of the party’s motions for judicial notice is denied as moot. 1

2

The City of Los Angeles appeals the district court’s order granting plaintiffs’

request for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1988, and California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. The district court

concluded that plaintiffs are “the prevailing party” under both statutes, but failed to

set forth any reasons underlying its conclusion. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care

Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 605 (2001). 

Nor did the district court explain how the award was calculated, i.e., “what number

of hours were being compensated and what hourly rate was applied.” Chalmers v.

Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1213 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the order is

internally inconsistent as to whether a multiplier was used, and it appears that some

noncompensable hours may have been included. 

Because the district court failed to provide a reasoned basis for its decision,

we are unable to engage in a meaningful review of either the basis for the award or

the award itself. See Hensley v. Eckhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437–40 (1983) (where 1

meaningful appellate review is not possible, remand for a fuller explanation of the

fee award is appropriate); Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. City of Hailey, 452 F.3d 1055,

1065 (9th Cir. 2006) (where there is no reasoning to support a fee award, “it is

simply not possible for this court to review [the] award in a meaningful manner”
3

(citation omitted)); Chalmers, 796 F.2d at 1213 (finding an order granting

attorneys’ fees insufficient because it failed to provide “an adequate explanation of

the reasons for [the] award and the manner in which that award was determined”). 

Therefore, we reverse the award of attorneys’ fees and remand for further

proceedings consistent herewith.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
exv4w5








Exhibit 4.5




CERTIFICATE OF MERGER

MERGING

BJ SERVICES COMPANY

INTO

BSA ACQUISITION LLC





     The undersigned limited liability company, formed and existing under and by virtue of the Delaware Limited
Liability Company Act, does hereby certify that:



     FIRST: The name and jurisdiction of formation or organization of each of the constituent entities in the merger are as follows:



	 	 	 
	Name	 	Jurisdiction of Formation or Organization
	BJ Services Company

	 	Delaware
	BSA Acquisition LLC

	 	Delaware






     SECOND: An Agreement and Plan of Merger between the parties to the merger has been approved, adopted, executed and acknowledged by each of the constituent entities in accordance with the requirements of Section 264 of the Delaware General Corporation Law and Section 18-209 of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act.



     THIRD: The name of the surviving limited liability company is BSA Acquisition LLC.



     FOURTH: The executed Agreement and Plan of Merger is on file at the principal place of business of the surviving limited liability company. The address of the principal place of business of the surviving limited liability company is 2929 Allen Parkway, Suite 2100, Houston, Texas 77019.



     FIFTH: A copy of the Agreement and Plan of Merger will be furnished by the surviving limited liability company, on request and without cost, to any stockholder of the constituent corporation and any member of the constituent limited liability company.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BSA Acquisition LLC has caused this Certificate of
Merger to be duly executed in its name this 28th day of April, 2010.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	BSA ACQUISITION LLC

 	 
	 	By:  	Baker Hughes Incorporated, its sole member
 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Chad C. Deaton
 	 
	 	 	Chad C. Deaton

Chairman of the Board, President and  	 
	 	 	Chief Executive Officer, Baker Hughes
Incorporated 

(Duly authorized officer) 	 
	 



Signature Page

Certificate of Merger
#### Indian River State Bank, Plaintiff in Error, v. Sun Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant in Error.

Division A.

Writ of error to Circuit Court, Brevard county;, Rhydon M. Call, Judge.

*627Robbins & Graham and Geo. P. Raney for plaintiff in error.

A. W. Cockrell & Son for defendant in error.

This action was brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error. There was judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff takes writ of error. Judgment reversed on the authority of Indian River State Bank v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, *ante,*p. 283.

Decision *Per Curiam.*
NACAA ENFORCEMENT & COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE

Conference Call Wednesday, July 3, 2013 12:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time Call-In Number: (866) 365-4406 Access Code: 1398016 # Press *6 to mute your line and *7 to un-mute it

AGENDA

1. Roll Call

2. I ntroduction of Matthew Tejada, Director of EPA’s Of fice of Environmental Justice ( Matthew Tejada, EPA Office of Environmental Justice )

a. Plan EJ2014 Highlights*

3. EPA and NACAA Discussions on Revisions to Federally Reportable Violations (FRV) Policy: Summary and Next Steps ( Ed Messina, EPA OECA Office of Compliance )

4. National Enforcement Initiatives for FY2014-2016 ( Michele Mckeever, EPA OECA )**

5. Summary of Comments Received on Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction (SSM) Proposal and EPA’s Next Steps ( Lisa Sutton, EPA OAQPS )***

6. EPA’s Request for AFS Modernization Workgroup Parti cipants ( David Meredith, EPA OECA Office of Compliance )****

7. Announcement of next call : The next call is scheduled for Wednesday, Septem ber 4

, 2013, from 12:30 – 2:00 pm Eastern; call in 866-365 -4406, access code 1398016#

.

NEXT CALL: September 4, 2013

*Highlights contained in EJ 2014 progress report: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/p olicy/plan-ej-2014/plan-ej-progress-report-2013.pdf

** Posted at http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/data/planning/initiativ es/2014-2016-nei-announcement.pdf

*** EPA SSM Proposal at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-22/pdf/2013 -03734.pdf

**** See http://members.4cleanair.org/rc_files/5521/AFS_Mode rnization_EPA_Letter_to%29Commissioners061113.pdf
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 1719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-373]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLMT926000-L14200000-BJ0000]


Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Montana

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of filing of plats of survey.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of 
survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, 
Billings, Montana, on February 10, 2012.

DATES: Protests of the survey must be filed before February 10, 2012 to 
be considered.

ADDRESSES: Protests of the survey should be sent to the Branch of 
Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, 
Billings, Montana 59101-4669.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Montoya, Cadastral Surveyor, 
Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate 
Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, telephone (406) 896-5124 or (406) 
896-5009, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b361a090d1215243614150f14021a3b191716551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bd6fae9edf2f5c4d6f4f5eff4e2fadbf9f7f6b5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 1-(800) 877-8339 to contact the above individual 
during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. 
You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This survey was executed at the request of 
the Bureau of Land Management, Dillon Field Office, and was necessary 
to determine federal interest lands.
    The lands we surveyed are:

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. 5 S., R. 3 W.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of 
Mineral Survey No. 8818, Princess Lode, Township 5 South, Range 3 
West, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted December 21, 2011.

    We will place a copy of the plat, in one sheet, and related field 
notes we described in the open files. They will be available to the 
public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest 
against this survey, as shown on this plat, in one sheet, prior to the 
date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our 
consideration of the protest. We will not officially file this plat, in 
one sheet, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all 
protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.

    Authority: 43 U.S.C. chap. 3.

James D. Claflin,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of Resources.
[FR Doc. 2012-373 Filed 1-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10775 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Terry Lee Moore,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:20

- CR

- 619

- 1

Before **Davis, Jones,** and **Elrod,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *
The attorney appointed to represent Terry Lee Moore has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Moore has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 11, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10775 Document: 00516162062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2022No. 21

- 10775

2 relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 21-10775 Document: 00516162062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2022
Parraguirre

appellant's knowing acquiescence in existing conditions, 2 and the State may suffer prejudice from the delay. 

### Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-64, 1 P.3d 969, 972 (2000). Furthermore, as a separate and independent basis for affirming the district court's order, we conclude that appellant failed to provide any facts or evidence demonstrating that he was incompetent when he entered his guilty plea. 

### Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 503, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3

,J. Hardesty

2 Appellant previously filed post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in 2007 and 2008. 

### Davis v. State, Docket No. 49451 (Order of Affirmance, October 3, 2007); Docket No. 51723 (Order of Affirmance, August 18, 2009). He failed to demonstrate why the claim raised in his current motion could not have been raised in his previous petitions.

3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.

2

### cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge Matthew A. Davis Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

3
#### William J. YATES, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-85-196.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 24, 1988.

*741David Autry, Asst. Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.

Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen., Tomilou Gentry Liddell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

The appellant, William J. Yates, was tried and convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County of the crime of Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, After Second or Subsequent Conviction in Case No. CRF-84-3429 and was sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment, and he appeals.

In his single assignment of error appellant contends that the State presented insufficient evidence that he had knowledge of the presence of and actual physical control over the phencyclidine (PCP) found in the automobile.

The pertinent facts are that on July 16, 1984, two Oklahoma City police officers stopped appellant, who was driving a Blazer truck, after observing that he drove on the wrong side of the road and failed to signal when turning. When one of the officers asked appellant to produce a driver’s license, he presented an identification card bearing an alias last name. The officer then detected a strong odor of ether, a substance and odor associated with PCP, in the truck. He also observed that appellant’s eyes appeared to be glazed, that he seemed confused and uncertain of what was transpiring, and that he appeared unsteady on his feet. Appellant was arrested for the traffic violations and suspicion of driving while under the influence. During the inventory of the vehicle, the officers discovered a small vial containing a liquid which was responsible for the strong odor. The liquid was later determined to be PCP.

Appellant refused to submit to a test to determine if he was intoxicated. He testified at trial that he borrowed the truck from a friend, that he attracted the attention of the officers because the clutch was not functioning properly, that he was not intoxicated, and that he had no knowledge of the vial which was discovered in the truck.

Having reviewed this evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant had actual physical custody or knowledge of the presence of the PCP in the truck. *See Spuehler v. State,*709 P.2d 202 (Okl.Cr.1985). This assignment is groundless.

The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P.J., and PARKS, J., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                            COMPUTRON SOFTWARE, INC.
                              List of Subsidiaries


Computron Technologies Europe Limited (incorporated in England and Wales)

Computron Technologies Pacific Limited (incorporated in Hong Kong)

Computron Technologies Pty. Limited (incorporated in Australia)

Computron Technologies Singapore Private Limited (incorporated in Singapore)

Computron Software (Canada) Inc. (incorporated in Canada)

Computron-Rewicks Sp.z o.o. (incorporated in Poland)

Computron Software (Germany) GmbH  (incorporated in Germany)

Computron Software S.A. (incorporated in France)




                                       57