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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 122 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 122

         Concerning the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 1993

 Mrs. Maloney (for herself, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, 
Mr. Meehan, Mr. Manton, Mr. Gilman, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Ravenel, Ms. Snowe, 
Mr. Hughes, Mr. Bateman, Mr. Fazio, Mr. Shays, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Studds, 
 and Mr. Dellums) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
         Concerning the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Whereas negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations are currently 
        being conducted pertaining to the name and to other national symbols of 
        the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;
Whereas all historical and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the ancient 
        Macedonians were Greeks and Macedonia is a Greek name in origin;
Whereas in 1944 the name of the territory of the Former Yugoslav Republic of 
        Macedonia was changed from Vardar Banovina to Macedonia as part of the 
        campaign by Yugoslavia's Communist dictator Tito to gain control of the 
        Greek province of Macedonia and the United States opposed the use of the 
        name Macedonia by Tito at that time;
Whereas Greece was a valuable ally of the United States during World War II and 
        during the cold war;
Whereas Greece continues to be a valuable ally of the United States in the 
        Eastern Mediterranean as demonstrated by its coalition role in the 
        Persian Gulf conflict;
Whereas Greece has no claim on the territory of the Former Yugoslav Republic of 
        Macedonia and has repeatedly reaffirmed the inviolability of all borders 
        in the area of the two countries; and
Whereas it is in the interest of the United States to oppose any expansionist or 
        irredentist policies in order to promote peace and stability in such 
        area: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should use 
its influence as a permanent member of the United Nations Security 
Council to support the efforts of Greece, in its negotiations with the 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, to find a solution which 
promotes a solid, cooperative relationship between these two 
neighboring countries.

                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 215 (Monday, November 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66580-66581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28442]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration


Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration 
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain 
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is 
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory 
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the 
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Blue Ridge Scenic Railway Company

[Docket Number FRA-2000-8132]

    The Blue Ridge Scenic Railway Company of Blue Ridge, Georgia, has 
petitioned for a permanent waiver of compliance for one passenger coach 
from the requirements of the Safety Glazing Standards, 49 CFR Part 223, 
which requires certified glazing in all windows and a minimum of four 
emergency windows. The railroad indicates that the car is used in 
tourist service over 13 miles of track between Blue Ridge and 
McCaysville, Georgia, at a speed not to exceed 15 mph. The railroad 
indicates that there is no freight operated over this line, which is in 
a rural area along the Toccoa River.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings 
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate 
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since 
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party 
desires

[[Page 66581]]

an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, 
before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their 
request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the 
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2000-8132) and must be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Clerk, DOT 
Central Docket Management Facility, Room Pl-401, Washington, DC, 20590-
0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice 
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments 
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All 
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for 
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at DOT 
Central Docket Management Facility, Room Pl-401 (Plaza Level), 400 
Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC. All documents in the public docket 
are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the 
docket facility's Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 1, 2000.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program 
Development.
[FR Doc. 00-28442 Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
* 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. 04-10106

Conference Calendar

 

TOMMY GABRIEL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

L.E. FLEMING, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CV-937-Y 

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tommy Gabriel, federal prisoner # 08531-078, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which

he alleged that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had erroneously

calculated his initial custody classification. Gabriel relies on

Sellers v. Bureau of Prisons, 959 F.2d 307 (D.C. Cir. 1992), in

support of his argument that, when calculating his initial

custody classification, the BOP incorrectly classified his

“failure to appear” for community supervision on a prior

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 04-10106 

-2-

conviction as “absconding” or an “escape” from community

supervision. Gabriel argues that, due to the classification

error, he was ineligible for placement in less restrictive

custody. 

In the context of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, the district

court’s determinations of law are reviewed de novo and its

findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. See Royal v.

Tombone, 141 F.3d 596, 599 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 

As a general rule, inmates have no protected liberty interest in

initial custodial classification. See Wilkerson v. Stalder,

329 F.3d 431, 435-36 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 432

(2003). Absent an abuse of discretion by prison officials, the

custodial classification will be upheld. Id. at 436.

Gabriel’s reliance on Sellers is misplaced because the

record in Gabriel’s case contains administrative records from the

BOP informing him that his classification status was consistent

with the prison classification manual. Cf. Sellers, 959 F.2d

at 312 (absence of administrative records for verification

purposes). The classification manual used by the BOP includes

the concepts of “failure to appear” and “absconding” from

community supervision within the broad definition of “escape.” 

Gabriel has failed to show that the BOP abused its discretion in

assigning his initial custodial classification. See Wilkerson,

329 F.3d at 436. Accordingly, because Gabriel has no

constitutional right in his initial custodial classification and
No. 04-10106 

-3-

because the record reflects that the BOP did not abuse its

discretion in assigning his initial classification, the district

court did not err in denying Gabriel’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. 

See Royal, 141 F.3d at 599. The judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED.
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 22226.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 24, 1942.

Jake Jay Reich, of San Antonio, for appellant.

■ Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was eonvicted under Article 525 of the Penal Code for having solicited and procured a female to visit a male person at a particular house for the purpose of having sexual intercourse, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $50 and confinement in the county jail for one month.

The complaint and information appear to be in regular form. The record is befort us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Hence no question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<PAGE>   1
                              AMRESCO CAPITAL TRUST

                 EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                      Period from
                                                                 Period from                          February 2,
                                                               January 1, 2000                           1998
                                                                   through          Year Ended          through
                                                                September 25,      December 31,      December 31,
                                                                    2000               1999              1998
                                                               ---------------   ---------------   ---------------
<S>                                                            <C>               <C>               <C>
Basic:
    Net income available to common shareholders ............   $         5,948   $         7,320   $         3,952
                                                               ===============   ===============   ===============

    Weighted average common shares outstanding .............            10,000            10,000             7,027
                                                               ===============   ===============   ===============

    Basic earnings per common share ........................   $          0.59   $          0.73   $          0.56
                                                               ===============   ===============   ===============

Diluted:
    Net income available to common shareholders ............   $         5,948   $         7,320   $         3,952
                                                               ===============   ===============   ===============

    Weighted average common shares outstanding .............            10,000            10,000             7,027
    Effect of dilutive securities:
      Restricted shares ....................................                15                12                 4
      Net effect of assumed exercise of warrants ...........                13                --                --
      Net effect of assumed exercise of stock options ......                 1                --                --
                                                               ---------------   ---------------   ---------------
    Adjusted weighted average common shares outstanding ....            10,029            10,012             7,031
                                                               ===============   ===============   ===============

    Diluted earnings per common share ......................   $          0.59   $          0.73   $          0.56
                                                               ===============   ===============   ===============
</TABLE>
1 

### Ogulei, David

From: **Damico, Genevieve**

Sent: **Monday, June 10, 2013 3:20 PM**

To: **Woolums, Jane; Ogulei, David; Morgan, Andrea; Moone y, John**  Subject: **FW: Veolia**

Attachments: **Letter to Genevieve Damico, USEPA.PDF**

From: Kellmeyer, Joseph [mailto:JKELLMEYER@thompsoncobur n.com]

Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:06 PM

To: Damico, Genevieve; Czerniak, George

Cc: Kellmeyer, Joseph; Kemper, Ryan Russell Subject: Veolia



### Dear Genevieve –

Attached please find correspondence relating to you r meeting with Veolia last week. I would appreciat e someone giving me a call relating to the issues discussed therein.

Thanks.

Joseph M. Kellmeyer **jkellmeyer@thompsoncoburn.com**

**P: 314.552.6166**

**F: 314.552.7166**

**M: 314.602.6166** Thompson Coburn LLP

**One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101**  **www.thompsoncoburn.com**



### ________________________________

**CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This message and any attachme nts are from a law firm. They are solely for the us**  **e of the intended recipient and may contain privileged, confidential or other legally protected**  **information. If you are not the intended recipient , please destroy all copies without reading or disc**  **losing their contents and notify the sender of the error by repl**  **y e-mail**

**TAX DISCLOSURE: The IRS requires that we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice in this message (**  **including any attachments) is not intended or writt en to**  **be used, and cannot be used, to (i) avoid any penal ties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promot**  **e, market or recommend to another party any transac tion,**  **arrangement or other matter.**
**WASHINGTON FEDERAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

**EXHIBIT 32**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**WASHINGTON FEDERAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

**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 Washington Federal, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigned’s best knowledge and belief: 

(a) the Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

Dated this 9th day of February 2009. 

 
Washington Federal, Inc.(Company)/s/ Roy M. WhiteheadROY M. WHITEHEADChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Brent J. BeardallBRENT J. BEARDALLExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3492 

To provide for the use of hand-propelled vessels in Yellowstone National 

Park, Grand Teton National Park, and the National Elk Refuge, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2013 

Mrs. LUMMIS (for herself and Mr. BISHOP of Utah) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the use of hand-propelled vessels in Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and 

the National Elk Refuge, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘River Paddling Protec5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REGULATIONS SUPERSEDED. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The following regulations shall 

8 have no force or effect with regard to hand-propelled ves9 sels and the Secretary of the Interior may not issue subVerDate Mar 15 2010 19:30 Nov 19, 2013 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3492.IH H3492

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3492 IH

1 stantially similar regulations that apply to hand-propelled 

2 vessels: 

3 (1) Section 7.13(d)(4)(ii) of title 36, Code of 

4 Federal Regulations, regarding vessels on streams 

5 and rivers in Yellowstone National Park. 

6 (2) Section 7.22(e)(3) of title 36, Code of Fed7 eral Regulations, regarding vessels on lakes and riv8 ers in Grand Teton National Park. 

9 (b) WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT RECREATIONAL USE.— 

10 Notwithstanding section 25.21(a) of title 50, Code of Fed11 eral Regulations, regarding National Elk Refuge, the use 

12 of hand-propelled vessels on rivers and streams in the Na13 tional Elk Refuge shall be considered a ‘‘wildlife-depend14 ent recreational use’’ as that term is defined in section 

15 5(2) of Public Law 89–669 (16 U.S.C. 668ee(2)). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
In the letter to the Commissioner of Customs published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 14, 1999 (64 FR 69744), insert the following sentence on page 69746, 1st column, 6th paragraph, line 20, right above                     **“General Provisions”:**                     “Any shipment which is declared for the Outward Processing Program but found not to qualify may be                     Start Printed Page 6176                    permanently denied entry into the United States.”                

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 00-2824 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DR-F
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

 Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

808 

KA 12-02287 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 

BANGALY D. CHELLEY, ALSO KNOWN AS AAFRICA,@

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT B. HALLBORG, JR., 

OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF 

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William 

Boller, A.J.), rendered November 13, 2012. The judgment convicted 

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon 

in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously 

affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant, a noncitizen, appeals from a judgment 

convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon 

in the second degree (Penal Law ' 265.03 [3]; see ' 265.02 [1]). Defendant 

implicitly contends that the failure of Supreme Court to advise him that 

he could be subject to deportation if he pleaded guilty renders his plea 

involuntary (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 197). We conclude that 

defendant=s contention is not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 

[2]), and that, under the circumstances of this case, the narrow exception 

to the preservation doctrine does not apply (cf. Peque, 22 NY3d at 182-183). 

It is undisputed that the presentence report stated that there was an 

immigration detainer on file at the Erie County Holding Center and that 

it was expected that defendant would face deportation proceedings when 

released from incarceration. Thus, defendant failed to establish that 

he Adid not know about the possibility of deportation during the . . . 

sentencing proceeding[], [and thus that] he had no opportunity to withdraw 

his plea based on the court=s failure to apprise him of potential 

deportation@ (id. at 183; see generally CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Murray,

15 NY3d 725, 726-727). Although the waiver of the right to appeal does 

not encompass defendant=s contention that the bargained-for sentence is 

unduly harsh and severe (see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 
-2- 808 

KA 12-02287 

925, 928), we nevertheless reject that contention.

Entered: August 8, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
MAY TERM, 1704.

#### James Keech’s Lessee *against*John Dansey.

EJECTMENT for a tract of land called *Town Neck,*lying in *St. Mary’s*County. The defendant took defence for a tract called *Ascham’s*land. On the plots filed in the cause it appears that the plaintiff located the defendant’s tract, which was the elder tract, as binding on the 'south side of a creek, and located his pretensions as binding on. the north side of the same creek, which was located so as to separate the two tracts one from the other. But the defendant located the tract he took defence for in such a *21manner that, instead of being bounded by the creek, the lines run across the creek, and included the greater part of the plaintiff’s pretensions. The verdict was for the defendant.

The followiiig reasons in arrest of judgment were 'filed by the plaintiff.

*First.*The second line of the defendant’s land is expressed in the patent to run *west up the creek ;*whereas the plots returned make it appear that the course west does not run *up*but *across*the creek, and thereby runs into the plaintiff’s land, which is the cause of the difference, and notwithstanding the act of Assembly(a) and common reason direct, that the greater certainty is always to be preferred to the less, and that the natural course of the creek is more certain than the artificial course of the compass ; besides the several testimonies that the taker up and the son of *Ascham*always intended and understood their land to be bounded by the creek, and not by the artificial line ; yet the Jury rejecting law, reason, and the evidence, found for the defendant; that is, that the natural bound should be rejected, and the artificial adopted, so that the defendant is permitted by the verdict to run over the creek and take the plaintiff’s land, which is error.

*Second.*It was the title of *Town Neck*land which was in question, and although it plainly appeai-ecl that, by running across the creek a great part of the plaintiff’s land was left out of *Ascham’s*land, yet the Jury found for the defendant, which implies that the plaintiff has no right to any part of *Town Neck*land, and is most gross error. For which reasons the plaintiff prays the verdict may be set aside.

Judgment upon the verdict for the defendant.

*William Dent0*attorney for plaintiff.

Lib. T. L. No. 3. fol. 383.

(a)

 TIie act of *jam*1699, commonly stiled the *Land Law,*See *Kilty's Landholder’s*Assistant, Appendix, p. 1.

*22*“*THE Court having adjourned from day to day until “ this 18th of October, 1704, do now adjourn until the “ last Tuesday of *April next;*for that the dismal accident “ of the Stadt House or Court House fire, which happened “ this morning about three or four o’clock, hath so distract- “ ed the minds of the several officers of this Court, and “ put their business in such confusion, that the Court con- “ ceive much inconveniency might attend their longer sit- “ ting.”