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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5586 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5586

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Solvent Violet 13.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

   Mr. Clay introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on Solvent Violet 13.

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

SECTION 1. SOLVENT VIOLET 13.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00       9,10-              Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        Anthracenedione,1-                                                 31/2015.......
                        hydroxy-4-[(4-
                        methylphenyl)
                        amino] (Solvent
                        Violet 13) (CAS
                        No. 81-48-1)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3204.19.25)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JONATHAN VILLAREAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF ZROBLACK, LLC;

Plaintiff, 

v.

JOHN SAENZ, MIGUEL VILLARREAL, 

JR., GUNN, LEE & CAVE, P.C.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. SA-20-CV-00571-OLG

O R D E R

This case is before the Court on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss the Claims Asserted by Jonathan Villareal, Individually, filed by Defendant John Saenz. See Dkt. No. 76 (the “Motion”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), United 

States Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer issued a March 4, 2022 report and recommendation (the 

“R&R”), in which he recommended that the Court dismiss all individually held claims asserted by 

Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 78. Magistrate Judge Farrer afforded the parties fourteen days to file written objections to the R&R from the date it was served. Id. No party has objected to Magistrate 

Judge Farrer’s R&R in the time allotted.

When no party objects to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court need not conduct 

a de novo review of the entire record. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make 

a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Rather, the Court need only 

review the magistrate judge’s recommendation to determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). After reviewing the 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 80 Filed 03/25/22 Page 1 of 2
2 

R&R and the papers on file in this case, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Farrer’s report 

and recommendation is correct and should be adopted. 

It is therefore ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Farrer’s recommendation (Dkt. No. 78) 

is ADOPTED IN FULL. All claims asserted by Plaintiff John Villareal individually against Defendant John Saenz, are hereby DISMISSED, to the extent any remaining claims exist. 

It is so ORDERED. 

SIGNED this ____ day of March, 2022. 

 ____________________________ 

ORLANDO L. GARCIA

Chief United States District Judge

25th

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 80 Filed 03/25/22 Page 2 of 2
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.                  

###### Presidio Trust

# AGENCY:

The Presidio Trust. 

# ACTION:

Public notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the Presidio Trust's receipt of and availability for public comment on an application from Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company, Sprint PCS, for colocation at an existing wireless telecommunications facilities site (“the project”) in the Presidio of San Francisco. The proposed location of the project is in the parking area located directly below the Doyle Drive overpass in the vicinity of the intersection of Halleck and Vallejo Streets. 

The project involves (i) replacing a single existing utility pole (installed by Cellular One) with a taller, slightly broader pole to accommodate three additional antenna panels, and (ii) placing the associated radio equipment within a nearby building. The utility pole will be approximately 65 feet tall, 15 feet taller than the existing Cellular One pole. Power for the project will be provided through underground coaxial cables connected to existing power sources. Connection to telephone lines will be through existing telephone lines. 

# COMMENTS:

Comments on the proposed project must be sent to Devon Danz, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052, and be received by November 13, 2000. A copy of Sprint PCS's application is available upon request to the Presidio Trust. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Devon Danz, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052. Email: ddanz@presidiotrust.gov. Telephone: 415-561-5300. 

Dated: October 4, 2000. 

Karen A. Cook, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 00-26005 Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-4R-U
BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

LAW, AGC-600 

SKYDIVE SACRAMENTO, 

Complainant, 

V, 

CITY OF LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. 16-09-09 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 

Please serve: 

Scott P. Lewis 

Christine M. Griffin 

ANDERSON & KREIGER LLP 

One Canal Park, Suite 200 

Cambridge, MA 02141 

T: 617.621.6560 

F: 617.621.6660 

slewis@andersonkreiger. com 

cgriffin@andersonkreiger.com 

Counsel for Respondent 

CO 

•I -;- i 

-CO 

CO 

August 25,2009 
BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVL\TION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINfGTON, D.C. 

SKYDIVE SACRAMENTO, 

Complainant, 

V. 

CITY OF LINCOLN, CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. 16-09-09 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 

The respondent. City of Lincoln, California (the "City"), moves to extend the time to file 

its answer under 14 C.F.R. § 16.23(d) by 21 days, fi-om August 31 until September 21,2009. In 

support of its motion, the City states as follows: 

1. The FAA served its Notice of Docketing by mail on August 7, 2009. Under 14 

C.F.R. § 16.23(d), the City's answer is now due on August 31,2009. 

2. The City needs the additional time it now seeks to prepare an appropriate 

response to the complaint. 

3. Through counsel, the City sought the consent of the complainant, Skydive 

Sacramento, to a proposed extension of time. Skydive Sacramento has declined to consent to 

this motion absent unacceptable concessions by the City. 
For these reasons, the City respectfully moves that it be allowed to submit its answer to 

the complaint on or before September 21,2009. 

By ij8-atfomeys^ 

•xJhristine M. Griffin 

ANDERSON «& KREIGER LLP 

One CaWPdflc, Suite 200 

Cambridge, MA 02141 

T: 617.621.6560 

F: 617.621.6660 

slewis@andersonkreiger. com 

cgriffin@andersonkreiger.com 

Coimsel for Respondent 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify in accordance with 14 CFR § 16.15(a) that today I served the foregoing 

Respondent's Motion to Extend Time on the following persons at the following addresses by 

Federal Express: 

Richard J. Durden 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

Office of Chief Counsel, Attention: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

AGC-610 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

25th4ay of August, 2009
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code) Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Sterling Bancorp, a New York corporation (the Company), hereby
certifies that: The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007 (the
Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company. Dated: May 10, 2007
  /s/ John W.
  TietjenName: John
  W. TietjenTitle:
  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of
the Report or as a separate disclosure document. 41
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5613 

To suspend temporarily the duty on cellular plastic sheets for nano-retention 

filters. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Mr. ELLISON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on cellular plastic sheets 

for nano-retention filters. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CELLULAR PLASTIC SHEETS FOR NANO-RETEN4 TION FILTERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5613 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Cellular plastic sheets of 

poly-tetrafluoroethylene 

with retention rating of 

10–30 nanometers, for use 

in manufacturing filters of 

heading 8421 (provided for 

in subheading 3921.19.00) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 12280 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:18

- cv - 03066

- RWS

REGINA BATTLE, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ ( December 12, 2019 ) Before R OSENBAUM , HULL , and MARCUS , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 19-12280 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 1 of 32 Regina Battle, a pro se claimant, a ppeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of her application for supplemental security income

. We review a Social Security case to determine whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, but we revi ew de novo whether the correct legal standards were applied. Moore v. Barnhart , 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). We read “briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally . . . [but] issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson , 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). “Issues raised in a perfunctory manner, without supporting arguments and citation to authorities, are generally deemed to be waived.” N.L.R.B. v. McClain of Ga

. , Inc. , 138 F.3d 1418, 1422 (11th Cir. 1998). “[T]his court will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district
court.” Stewart v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs. , 26 F.3d 115, 115 (11th Cir. 1994). Here, Battle submitted a three

- page brie f listing three issues: (1) the district court failed to “recognize facts/statements” made by the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) ; (2) the district court did not allow for a reasonable time to receive her objections to the magistrate judge’s report and r ecommendation ; and (3) “[t]he Commissioner failed to address facts in the case.” Battle’s argument section includes only a conclusory request that this Court “reconsider the past decision/dismissal” because she has not worked in ten years , and the Social Security

Case: 19-12280 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 2 of 33 Administration allegedly failed to follow the required five

- step decision process. Battle also provides a conclusion section in which she argues that Nancy Berryhill, the acting Commissioner, “has a known reputation . . . to go to great lengths t o deny SSI . . . benefits to the deserved and obviously disabled.” We must conclude that Battle abandoned her arguments on appeal because she failed to provide any legal authority, citations to the record, or substantive arguments in her brief. See Tim son , 518 F.3d at 874. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Case: 19-12280 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.02

DEER VALLEY CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 of Deer Valley Corporation (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, John S. Lawler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ John S. Lawler     
|John S. Lawler         
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 13, 2009
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41176 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHN ALLEN WALTER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:97-CR-28-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - May 15, 1998 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John Allen Walter appeals his sentence for bank robbery, assaultive conduct during the robbery, and using or carrying a gun while committing a crime of violence. He argues that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender because his prior convictions for robbery were for robberies which occurred within 19 days of each other and were for the common plan to obtain money for housing. The district court did not err when itNo. 97-41176 -2- sentenced Walter as a career offender. See United States v. Garcia , 962 F.2d 479, 481-82 (5th Cir. 1992); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1.
AFFIRMED.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CHARLES DEONTE PATTEN,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D16-2102

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 2, 2016

Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from 

the Circuit Court for St. Johns County,

J. Michael Traynor, Judge.

Charles Deonte Patten, St. Augustine, pro 

se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Respondent.

EVANDER, J.

Petitioner, Charles Deonte Patten, seeks certiorari review of a trial court order 

denying his request for investigative costs. Petitioner was charged with attempted 

second-degree murder of a law enforcement officer with a firearm (Count I); carrying a 

concealed firearm (Count II); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Counts III 

and IV). He was initially assigned court-appointed counsel. However, Petitioner 
2

subsequently executed a waiver of counsel following a Faretta1inquiry. Thereafter, 

Petitioner filed a pro se motion to incur costs for private investigative funds, alleging he 

was indigent and needed the assistance of a private investigator to prepare his defense. 

The trial court entered an order denying Petitioner’s motion, concluding that the waiver of 

Petitioner’s constitutional right to court-appointed counsel “necessarily include[d] a waiver 

of the expenses court-appointed counsel would have been entitled, such as investigative 

services and other personnel.” The State properly concedes that the trial court’s order 

constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law and that the petition should

be granted. 

The Florida Legislature has expressly authorized a pro se litigant, who is eligible 

to be represented by a public defender, to seek payment for the provision of due process 

services:

A person who is eligible to be represented by a public 

defender under s. 27.51 but . . . who is proceeding pro se, 

may move the court for a determination that he or she is 

indigent for costs and eligible for the provision of due process 

services, as prescribed by ss. 29.006 and 29.007, funded by 

the state. 

§ 27.52(5), Fla. Stat. (2016). Accordingly, a criminal defendant is not required to accept 

the services of a public defender in order to obtain reasonable costs. See, e.g., 

Thompson v. State, 525 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Price v. Mounts, 421 So. 2d 

690, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). 

Section 27.52(5) sets forth those factors that are to be considered by a trial court 

in determining whether a defendant is indigent for costs and eligible for the provision of 

 

1 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). 
3

due process services. On remand, the trial court is to apply those factors when 

reconsidering Petitioner’s motion.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; CAUSE REMANDED. 

LAWSON, C.J. and SAWAYA, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5633 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5633

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rolling backpacks with a 
                     removable backpack or daypack.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

  Mr. Polis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rolling backpacks with a 
                     removable backpack or daypack.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ROLLING BACKPACKS WITH A REMOVABLE BACKPACK OR 
              DAYPACK.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Backpacks of man-   Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          made fibers,                                                      12/31/2015
                          valued over $30
                          each, each having
                          wheels, a
                          telescoping
                          handle, stowable
                          shoulder straps
                          and a removable
                          separate backpack
                          or daypack
                          attached by
                          zipper or other
                          means, with the
                          main interior
                          compartment
                          capacity not
                          exceeding 85
                          liters and the
                          removable
                          separate backpack
                          or daypack
                          capacity not
                          exceeding 26
                          liters (provided
                          for in subheading
                          4202.92.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```