alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusGrounds Features
200th Anniversary of Congress in Washington Tree
        
                  The Basics
      
Materials
    Marmo Maple

Year
    2000

Location
      
Capitol Square, S.E.

U.S. Capitol Grounds

                  View on Map

Text of the Plaque

U.S. Capitol Grounds
Commemorative Tree

*Acer x freemanii 'marmo'*
(Marmo Maple)

Sponsored by
Rep. J. Dennis Hastert

To Commemorate the 200th Anniversary
of the 1st Meeting of Congress in Washington

November 15, 2000
          
    
      Image Gallery
    
    See caption.

The 200th Anniversary of Congress in Washington tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds during summer.
    See caption.

The 200th Anniversary of Congress in Washington tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds during fall.
    See caption.

The 200th Anniversary of Congress in Washington tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds during winter.
    See caption.

The 200th Anniversary of Congress in Washington tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds during spring.

      Previous Image
        Next Image

          See caption.
      See caption.
      See caption.
      See caption. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
26703

#### State v. Guido

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 99.a



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund III L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Director, Principal and Principal Executive Officer of C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                       
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                 
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Fund.



|                | Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund III L.P.
|--------------- | ---------------------------------------
|                |                                        
|                | By:                                    
|                |                                        
|                |                                        
|                | By:                                    
|                |                                        
|                |                                        
|                | By:                                    
|                |                                        
|                |                                        
|Date:           |                                        
|August 20, 2002 | By:                                    
|                |                                        
|                |                                        
|                |                                        
|                |                                        
|                |
#### Gwendolyn A. Chase, as Administratrix of the Estate of Vernon Chase, Deceased, Plaintiff, *v.*Mt. Morris Park Hospital, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

November 14, 1958.

*Victor J. Herwits*for defendant.

*Julian Buchbinder*for plaintiff.

Saul S. Streit, J.

Defendant moves for dismissal of the second amended complaint for insufficiency. Deceased was a patient at the defendant hospital. The sole substantive allegation is: *‘‘ FOURTH:*That on or about the 25th day of December, 1956, as a result of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence on the part of the defendant, its agents, servants and/or employees, in that they failed to properly and adequately supervise the person of the deceased; in that they failed to provide him with adequate restraints, having had sufficient notice and knowledge' and information that such restraints were necessary and proper; in that they failed to provide proper barricades or barriers, or to properly secure the window in the room where the deceased was confined, so that the deceased was caused to fall out of the window of his room to the ground below and sustain the injuries which caused his death.”

*197Assuming a breach of duty with respect to bed and bedside requirements, there is no explanation of, or connection with, a fall from a window. Nor is there sufficient information to connect a failure to supervise the person with the duty to do so, the measure or necessity therefor, or with the fall from a window. There is also failure to support an alleged duty to secure the window and its breach or to connect such failure to secure the window with a fall therefrom. If an inference of suicide is to be drawn from the pleading, it is the fault of the pleader. If in fact the inference is invited, ultimate facts must be set forth which will support a duty to guard against suicide and the breach of such duty.

The motion is granted, with final opportunity to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within 20 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVERARDO CAMACHO-CASTRO,

Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 17-72979

Agency No. A092-787-671

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 6, 2023** 

Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD, WATFORD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

To be granted a deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT), an applicant must show that “it is more likely than not that he or she would

FILED

MAR 10 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)(2). Here, the immigration judge (IJ) found that Camacho-Castro had

not proved that he was more likely than not to be tortured if he were removed to

Mexico. “We review only the BIA’s decision except to the extent the decision

adopts or relies on the IJ’s reasoning, in which case we review both the IJ’s and the

BIA’s decisions.” Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2019).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s factual findings, so the facts of the

case do not compel us to reverse the IJ’s decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);

Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 738 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e may reverse

only if the evidence in the record compels a contrary result.”). To prove that it is

more likely than not that the petitioner will be tortured if removed, the petitioner

must provide more than “generalized evidence of violence and crime,” but

evidence of a risk that is “particular” to the petitioner. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,

600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Although Camacho-Castro argues that his accent, demeanor, dress, and other

signs that he lived away from Mexico, or in the United States specifically, for a

time makes him a likely target for kidnapping, torture, extortion, and other harms if

he is returned to Mexico, Camacho-Castro’s fears are, as the IJ found, a speculative

“series of worst-case scenarios.” Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1348

2
(9th Cir. 2013). Although the IJ noted that Camacho-Castro had presented some

evidence of “crime directed at recent deportees,” the agency permissibly concluded

that the overall risk that respondent would personally be subjected to torture was

too “speculative” and that Camacho-Castro had therefore failed to carry his burden

to show that he was entitled to CAT relief. Camacho-Castro offers no evidence

that he specifically is more likely to be targeted than most others who came to

Mexico after spending a long time in the United States. Because substantial

evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Camacho-Castro did not provide

sufficient evidence that he would be tortured if returned to Mexico, we must deny

Camacho-Castro’s petition for review.

PETITION DENIED.

3
U. S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICE OF SALE OF COTTON

FOR RELEASE AT 2:00 P.M. CT September 25, 2019

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service today announced the sale of Cotton. The cotton bales were sold under 

Invitation 2019U0015 dated September 17, 2019.

Invitation 2019U0015

Catalog 

Lot No. 

Catalog Location Purchaser Pounds Sold 

Price Sold 

(per 

Pound)

CCC Revenue 

1 SEMINOLE, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 42,325 0.5816 $24,616.22 

2 SEMINOLE, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 41,286 0.5814 $24,003.68 

3 SEMINOLE, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 42,453 0.5801 $24,626.99 

4 SEMINOLE, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 6,937 0.5822 $4,038.72 

5 SEMINOLE, TX ECOM USA 990 0.5205 $515.30 

6 SEMINOLE, TX ECOM USA 28,016 0.556 $15,576.90 

7 SEMINOLE, TX ECOM USA 485 0.496 $240.56 

8 SEMINOLE, TX ECOM USA 2,982 0.529 $1,577.48 

9 SEMINOLE, TX ECOM USA 485 0.4735 $229.65 

10 DEMING, NM ECOM USA 40,393 0.5215 $21,064.95 

11 DEMING, NM ECOM USA 17,242 0.5115 $8,819.28 

12 DEMING, NM ECOM USA 10,899 0.4985 $5,433.15 

13 DEMING, NM ECOM USA 9,009 0.4915 $4,427.92 

14 DEMING, NM ECOM USA 491 0.4485 $220.21 

15 DEMING, NM ECOM USA 40,312 0.5055 $20,377.72 

16 DEMING, NM ECOM USA 41,048 0.5055 $20,749.76 

17 DEMING, NM ECOM USA 34,825 0.5055 $17,604.04 

18 DEMING, NM ECOM USA 6,789 0.455 $3,089.00 

21 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 471 0.4415 $207.95 

22 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 3,874 0.464 $1,797.54 

23 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 504 0.459 $231.34 

24 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 4,572 0.3915 $1,789.94 

25 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 502 0.399 $200.30 

26 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 1,819 0.3415 $621.19 

27 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 3,243 0.3913 $1,268.99 

28 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 528 0.324 $171.07 

29 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 8,830 0.4341 $3,833.10 

30 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 2,411 0.3399 $819.50 

31 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 1,037 0.374 $387.84 

32 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 8,841 0.4424 $3,911.26 
33 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 530 0.349 $184.97 

34 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 12,504 0.4322 $5,404.23 

35 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 484 0.339 $164.08 

36 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 3,587 0.384 $1,377.41 

37 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 1,438 0.3314 $476.55 

38 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 1,023 0.374 $382.60 

39 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 477 0.3165 $150.97 

40 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 527 0.374 $197.10 

41 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 482 0.3165 $152.55 

42 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 2,511 0.294 $738.23 

43 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 27,803 0.411 $11,427.03 

44 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 563 0.3065 $172.56 

45 Sweetwater, TX Brighann Marketing Inc 1,065 0.275 $292.88 

46 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 544 0.299 $162.66 

47 Sweetwater, TX ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 545 0.369 $201.11 

48 Sweetwater, TX Union Compress 15,711 0.3406 $5,351.17 

473,393 $239,287.60
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2

                         CENTRAL ILLINOIS LIGHT COMPANY
                        Computation of Ratio of Earnings
                                to Fixed Charges

<Table>
<Caption>                        2002         2001         2000         1999         1998
                                                   Twelve Months Ended
(As Restated(1))
(In thousands)
<S>                            <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Earnings, as Defined:
  Net Income                   $ 50,128     $ 14,638     $ 47,777     $ 19,249     $ 44,235
  Income Taxes                   26,472        7,789       26,227        8,376       22,472
  Fixed Charges, as Below        29,359       29,282       29,443       29,224       28,187
                               --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
    Total Earnings, as
      Defined                  $105,959     $ 51,709     $103,447     $ 56,849     $ 94,894
                               ========     ========     ========     ========     ========
Fixed Charges, as Defined:
  Interest on COLI             $  5,334     $  4,926     $  4,300     $  4,031     $  3,624
  Interest on Short-term
    Debt                            839        3,221        4,159        2,015          962
  Interest on Long-term
    Debt                         19,006       17,678       17,516       19,234       19,498
  Amortization of Debt
    Discount & Expense,
    Premium and Reacquired
    Loss                            544          414          423          668          535
  Miscellaneous Interest
    Expense                       2,017        2,186        1,565        1,467        1,780
  Interest Portion of
    Rentals                       1,619          857        1,480        1,809        1,788
                               --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
    Total Fixed Charges,
      as Defined               $ 29,359     $ 29,282     $ 29,443     $ 29,224     $ 28,187
                               ========     ========     ========     ========     ========
Ratio of Earnings to
  Fixed Charges                     3.6          1.8          3.5          1.9          3.4
                               ========     ========     ========     ========     ========
</Table>

(1) See Note 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           8,196
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,032
<PP&E>                                         337,202
<DEPRECIATION>                                  87,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 274,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,336
<BONDS>                                        139,453
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   274,765
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               117,554
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,165
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,132
<INCOME-TAX>                                       822
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,907
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,907
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.46
        

</TABLE>
910 P.2d 128

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### State v. Karagianes

17612

1/12/96

Affirmed
Exhibit
32.1






CENTEX
CORPORATION











CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
connection with the Annual Report of Centex Corporation and Subsidiaries (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy
R. Eller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge:






(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and






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










/s/ TIMOTHY R. ELLER
              Timothy
      R. Eller
              Chief
      Executive OfficerDate:  May
      21, 2009
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                  REGARDING INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REVIEW REPORT

The Board of Directors
LaserSight Incorporated:

With  respect  to the  registration  statements  on  Form  S-8  (nos.  33-96390,
33-52170, 333-16817, 333-16823, 333-62587, 333-62591, 333-84073, 333-84075 and
333-42662) and on Form S-3 (nos. 333-2198, 333-25237, 333-36655, 333-36837,
333-59369, 333-68495, 333-77825, 333-35822 and 333-46470) of LaserSight
Incorporated, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report
dated October 20, 2000 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c)  under the  Securities  Act of 1933,  such report is not
considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

                                   /s/KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
November 14, 2000
* 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. 01-50391

Summary Calendar

 

JANIE T. OJEDA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-99-CV-815-JN

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

February 20, 2002

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Janie Trevino Ojeda (“Ojeda”) appeals the district court’s

judgment affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of

her application for supplemental security income (SSI). Ojeda

contends that the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) findings were

not supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ did not

apply the proper legal standard for her age.

“Appellate review of the [Commissioner’s] denial of

disability benefits is limited to determining whether the

decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and
No. 01-50391

-2-

whether the proper legal standards were used in evaluating the

evidence.” Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.

1990)(citation omitted); Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th

Cir. 1995). “‘Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla,

less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.’” Villa, 895 F.2d at 1021-22 (citation omitted). 

WE AFFIRM, substantially for the reasons stated in the

magistrate judge’s opinion Ojeda v. Massanari, No. A-99-CV-815-

AA (W.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2001) (unpublished).

AFFIRMED.