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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1123 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1123

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 23, 2019

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 28, United States Code, to modify the composition of the 
     eastern judicial district of Arkansas, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Divisional Realignment for the 
Eastern District of Arkansas Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REALIGNMENT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.

    Section 83(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read 
as follows:
``Eastern District
    ``(a) The Eastern District comprises three divisions.
            ``(1) The Central Division comprises the counties of 
        Cleburne, Cleveland, Conway, Dallas, Drew, Faulkner, Grant, 
        Jefferson, Lincoln, Lonoke, Perry, Pope, Prairie, Pulaski, 
        Saline, Stone, Van Buren, White, and Yell.
Court for the Central Division shall be held at Little Rock.
            ``(2) The Delta Division comprises the counties of 
        Arkansas, Chicot, Crittenden, Desha, Lee, Monroe, Phillips, and 
        St. Francis.
Court for the Delta Division shall be held at Helena.
            ``(3) The Northern Division comprises the counties of Clay, 
        Craighead, Cross, Fulton, Greene, Independence, Izard, Jackson, 
        Lawrence, Mississippi, Poinsett, Randolph, Sharp, and Woodruff.
Court for the Northern Division shall be held at Jonesboro.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendment made by this Act shall take effect on 
the date of enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 22, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 72 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2019 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House to make a correction in 

the enrollment of H.R. 2423. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2423, 

3 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the 

4 following corrections: 

5 (1) In section 2(a)(3), strike ‘‘Carrie Chapman 

6 Cat’’ and insert ‘‘Carrie Chapman Catt’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 72 RDS 

1 (2) In section 4(a)(2)(C), strike the period after 

2 ‘‘Unum’’ and insert a period after the closed 

3 quotation mark at the end. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 

2019. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Staff Sergeant NICHOLAS E. RODERICK

United States Air Force

ACM S32256

9 April 2015

Sentence adjudged 13 May 2014 by SPCM convened at Luke Air Force 

Base, Arizona. Military Judge: Natalie D. Richardson.

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 5 months, 

forfeiture of $700.00 pay per month for 5 months, and reduction to E-1.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Lucy H. Carrillo 

and Major Thomas A. Smith.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Katherine E. Oler. 

Before

ALLRED, HECKER, and TELLER

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent 

under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). 

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
FLY 

HABANA 

Greetings, 

FAA sUASs Amendment to Exemption 

Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act 

Fly Habana, LLC has proudly been issued an exemption, Regulatory Docket No F AA-2014-1004 and 

exemption numbered 11284 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting unmanned aircraft 

system (UAS) aerial photography for motion picture, television, and the content creation industry for 

scripted closed set filming. Fly Habana, LLC hereby respectfully requests an amendment to the 

exemption to allow the below listed additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully 

complies with the conditions of the Exemption. 

Fly Habana LLC., wishes to additionally operate a DJI SIOOO, DJI S900, DJI Inspire, Phantom I, II and 

III, XX8LI Zenmuse, X8 Zenmuse under the same tem1s and conditions contained in the Exemption. Sent 

under separate cover is the Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM) for the additional UAS. All 

operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption. 

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking only for the addition of another type of 

unmanned aerial vehicle, Fly Habana, LLC. respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice 

does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment. 

Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any question or concerns concerning this 

request for an amendment to the Exemption. 

Sincerely, 

Mark 

~ Eberle, Director of Flight Operations 

Fly Habana 

8670 66th Ct N 

Pinellas Park, FL 33782 

844-359-4222 phone 

818-448-5367 cellphone 

646-224-6118 fax 

A Creative Aerial Company 

(844) FlyHabana I (844) 359-4222 

www .FiyHabana.com 

Page 1 of 1
## **Exhibit 31.2**

##  

**Section 302Certification**

 

I, David Sheridan, certify that:

 

1.    I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Seneca Gaming Corporation;

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.    The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

(c)          Discussed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)          All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: May 15, 2009 | /s/ David Sheridan            |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                    | David Sheridan                |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer       |
|                    | (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

----
1517 WEST FRONT STREET  SUITE 354  TYLER, TX 75702  TEL: 903-593-8471  FAX: 903-593-2193

Serving Anderson, Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson, Houston, Nacogdoches, Rains, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Smith, Trinity, Upshur, Van 

Zandt and Wood Counties

www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us

CHIEF JUSTICE

JAMES T. WORTHEN

JUSTICES

BRIAN HOYLE

GREG NEELEY

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

CLERK

CATHY S. LUSK

CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY

MARGARET HUSSEY

April 9, 2015

Ms. Lois Rogers

District Clerk, Smith County

Courthouse, Suite 204

100 North Broadway Avenue

Tyler, TX 75702-7201

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 12-15-00034-CR, 12-15-00035-CR, 

12-15-00036-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 241-2620-06-A, 241-2621-06-A, 241-2622-06-A

Style: Donald Lee Gray

v.

The State of Texas

Pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, enclosed herewith is the 

Mandate issued in the above causes. When the District or County Clerk has executed the 

Mandate in accordance with the opinion of this Court, the Clerk is requested to fill in the 

information below and to return the attached copy to this office.

Very truly yours,

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:_____________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

CC: Mr. James W. Volberding (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mr. Michael J. West (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mandate executed on __10th day of __APRIL______________, 2015.

Brief explanation of action taken: ____SCANNNED____________________________________

___________LINDA RHYMES____________________________________District/County Clerk

FILE COPY FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 4/10/2015 11:02:09 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15I0150. BRANDSMART USA OF GA, LLC, et al. v. MICHAEL DENNY AS

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JASON DENNY.

BrandsMart USA of GA, LLC, et al. (“BrandsMart”), defendants in the case

below, seek immediate review of a trial court order which, inter alia, granted partial

summary judgment to the plaintiff. BrandsMart filed both a notice of direct appeal

and, in an abundance of caution, this application for interlocutory review.

Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant of summary judgment on any issue

or as to any party is reviewable by direct appeal. Olympic Dev. Group v. American

Druggists’ Ins. Co., 175 Ga. App. 425 (1) (333 SE2d 622) (1985). Thus, the order

that BrandsMart seeks to appeal is directly appealable and is not subject to the

interlocutory appeal requirements. In addition, all rulings within that order and any

other non-final rulings entered in the case may be challenged as part of such a direct

appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (d); Southeast Ceramics v. Klem, 246 Ga. 294, 295 (1)

(271 SE2d 199) (1980). 

Ordinarily, when a party files a timely application for interlocutory review of

an order that is subject to direct appeal, we will grant the application. See Spivey v.

Hembree, 268 Ga. App. 485, 486, n.1 (602 SE2d 246) (2004). Here, however,

BrandsMart has already filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order. 

Accordingly, this application is superfluous and is hereby DISMISSED.

April 01, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

04/01/2015
SERVED: APRIL 4, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC IN THE MATTER OF BAER AIR, INC. DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-0112 (Civil Penalty Action)
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011S0150234) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

### ...-···/~--~--·;

Attachment
- Service List (.; / 

# / "'····-if-· -J.-....::>-_....._. Ronnie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative

### L~

### SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. 

### MAIL
Federal Aviation Administration 800'Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 ORIGINAL & ONE COPY

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001
Baer Air, Inc., 

### Respondent William 

### L. Baer, President 150 South Apollo Boulevard Melbourne, FL 32901 TEL: 973-672-8000 FAJ<: 973-672-8215 I ONE COPY

Vincent J. Bennett, 

### Complainant's Counsel ·Senior Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ANE-7 Federal Aviation Administration 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 TEL: 781-238-7044 FAJ<: 781-238-7055 Hon. J.E. Sullivan,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation · 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310)

Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAJ<: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0

### i 12

. . (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1138 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1138

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2019

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To reauthorize the West Valley demonstration project, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. WEST VALLEY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

    (a) Reauthorization.--Section 3(a) of the West Valley Demonstration 
Project Act (Public Law 96-368; 42 U.S.C. 2021a note) is amended by 
striking ``$5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981'' 
and inserting ``$75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 
2026''.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report 
that describes--
            (1) the volumes, origins, and types of radioactive waste at 
        the Western New York Service Center in West Valley, New York;
            (2) what options have been identified for disposal of each 
        such type of radioactive waste;
            (3) what is known about the costs of, and timeframes for, 
        each such option;
            (4) the benefits and challenges of each such option, 
        according to the State of New York and the Department of 
        Energy; and
            (5) as of the date of enactment of this Act--
                    (A) how much has been spent on the disposal of 
                radioactive waste associated with the demonstration 
                project prescribed by section 2(a) of the West Valley 
                Demonstration Project Act; and
                    (B) what volumes and types of radioactive waste 
                have been disposed of from the Western New York Service 
                Center.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50995

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAFAEL ORLANDO MARINERO-REVELO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:08-CR-6-ALL

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Rafael Orlando Marinero-Revelo (Marinero) pleaded guilty to the charge

of being an alien found unlawfully in the United States following a prior removal

and received a sentence of 72 months in prison. He asserts that the sentence he

received is substantively unreasonable. 

Marinero contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the

applicable guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, was not created based on empirical

evidence and double-counted his prior crime of violence. Because Marinero did

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 6, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50995

2

not challenge the reasonableness of his sentence on this ground in the district

court, we review this appellate argument for plain error. See United States v.

Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 962 (2009);

United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128

S. Ct. 2959 (2008). He has not established that the district court plainly erred

by relying on § 2L1.2 to impose his sentence. See United States v. CamposMaldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338-39 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008).

Marinero also maintains that the sentence was greater than needed to

accomplish the goals of sentencing listed in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). He notes that

he returned to the United States to find work and reconnect with his family and

that his prior criminal history was caused by a history of alcoholism. Marinero

further contends that his offense was not inherently evil and “was, at bottom, an

international trespass.” The district court heard Marinero’s allocution about his

reasons for returning and his problems with alcohol but elected to impose a

sentence within the applicable range. The court’s statements at sentencing

reflect the court’s concerns about the severity of Marinero’s prior offenses.

Marinero has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in selecting

a sentence or, consequently, that the within-guidelines sentence imposed is

unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); United

States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Consequently, the judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

THOMAS A. JEFFREY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 395 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of November, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
## TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT:

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT:

PORTABLE AIR CONDITIONERS

February 2015

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards

Washington, DC 20585This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy

and by staff members of

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

and

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

H. W. et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-55595

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-07015-SJO-E

Central District of California, 

Los Angeles

ORDER

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 7, 2012

Pasadena, California

Before: REINHARDT, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

We remand this case to the district court in light of Payne v. Peninsula

School District, 653 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2011), a decision issued after the district

court entered its order. We held in Payne that the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act’s exhaustion requirement, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l), is not jurisdictional

and set forth a new relief-based approach, as opposed to an injury-based approach,

for determining whether a claim is subject to the exhaustion requirement. In

conformity with Payne, the Defendant may file an unenumerated Rule 12(b)

FILED

AUG 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
motion for failure to exhaust in place of its motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction. Plaintiffs shall be afforded the opportunity to respond to Defendant’s

motion. 

REMANDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.