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

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# 374th Airlift Wing commander Talks Bilateral Future with RAAF Partners

By Senior Airman Juan Torres374th Airlift Wing Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 35 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 35

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the final rule of the Department of the Interior 
      relating to ``Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public 
 Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in 
                               Alaska''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2017

Mr. Young of Alaska submitted the following joint resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the final rule of the Department of the Interior 
      relating to ``Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public 
 Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in 
                               Alaska''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of the Interior relating to ``Non-
Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure 
Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska'' (81 Fed. Reg. 
52248 (August 5, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
ANTOINE DYSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-0679

Opinion filed May 5, 2017.

Petition for Belated Appeal -- Original Jurisdiction.

Antoine Dyson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits. 

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### State, Plaintiff, vs. Kollat, Defendant.

*April 10*

May *11, 1926.*

*Intoxicating liquors: License to sell non-intoxicants: Consent to search of premises: No right to search person on warrant for premises.*

The consent of one licensed to sell non-intoxicating liquors under sub. (30a), sec. 165.01, Stats., to an inspection of his premises at any reasonable time without a warrant extends only to the premises and not ‡9 frig person. _

*256Reported from the circuit court' for Green Lake county: Chester A. Fowler, Circuit Judge.

*Question answered No.*

The defendant having been convicted of an offense against the prohibition act) and the trial court being doubtful concerning a point of law arising upon the trial,'reports to this court the following question:

“May a sheriff, while searching for intoxicating liquor a place duly licensed for the sale of non-intoxicating beverages within his county, lawfully seize, without any search warrant for the search of any person, intoxicating liquor from within the clothing of the licensee of the place who is within the place and himself conducting it at the time of the search?”

For the plaintiff there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *J. E. Messer schmidt,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *James Murray,*district attorney of Fond du Lac county, and *Mr. Messer schmidt.*

For the defendant there was a brief by *Reilly & O’Brien*of Fond du Lac, and oral argument by /. *E. O’Brien.*

Owen, J.

The search or inspection was made under the provisions of sub. (30a), sec. 165.01, Stats., which provides : “The commissioner, his deputies or any peace officer may inspect the premises of any person having a license for the sale of non-intoxicating liquors at any reasonable time without warrant.” The constitutionality of this provision was considered and sustained in *Finsky v. State, 176*Wis. 481, 187 N. W. 201; and *Silber v. Bloodgood, 177*Wis. 608, 188 N. W. 84. In those cases it was held that by applying for and receiving a license for the sale of non-intoxicating beverages the licensee consented to a search of his premises and thereby, in effect, waived his constitutional immunity from searches of the premises so licensed. The waiver, however, extended only to the premises. It did not extend to his person. As a search warrant authorizing the search *257of “premises” does not authorize the search of “persons” *(State v. Wuest, ante,*p. 251, 208 N. W. 899), a consent to search the premises licensed does not carry with it consent to search the person of the licensee.

*By the Court.*— The question reported is answered “No.”
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1082 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to eliminate the State option 

to reduce the home equity exemption amount for purposes of eligibility 

for long-term care assistance under Medicaid, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2017 

Mr. GUTHRIE (for himself and Mr. MULLIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

the State option to reduce the home equity exemption 

amount for purposes of eligibility for long-term care assistance under Medicaid, 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 ‘‘Medicaid Home Owner 

5 Maximum Equity Improvement Act’’ or the ‘‘Medicaid 

6 HOME Improvement Act’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1082 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATING STATE OPTION TO REDUCE MED2 ICAID HOME EQUITY EXEMPTION AMOUNT 

3 FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ELIGI4 BILITY FOR LONG-TERM CARE ASSISTANCE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1917(f)(1) of the Social 

6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(f)(1)) is amended— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘subpara8 graphs (B) and (C)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraph 

9 (B)’’; 

10 (2) by striking subparagraph (B); 

11 (3) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as sub12 paragraph (B); and 

13 (4) in subparagraph (B), as so redesignated, by 

14 striking ‘‘dollar amounts specified in this para15 graph’’ and inserting ‘‘dollar amount specified in 

16 subparagraph (A)’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

18 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by 

19 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to eligibility 

20 determinations made after the date that is 180 days 

21 after the date of the enactment of this section. 

22 (2) EXCEPTION FOR STATE LEGISLATION.—In 

23 the case of a State plan under title XIX of the So24 cial Security Act that the Secretary of Health and 

25 Human Services determines requires State legisla26 tion in order for the respective plan to meet any reVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:51 Feb 22, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1082.IH H1082

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1082 IH

1 quirement imposed by amendments made by this 

2 section, the respective plan shall not be regarded as 

3 failing to comply with the requirements of such title 

4 solely on the basis of its failure to meet such an ad5 ditional requirement before the first day of the first 

6 calendar quarter beginning after the close of the 

7 first regular session of the State legislature that be8 gins after the date of the enactment of this Act. For 

9 purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a 

10 State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year 

11 of the session shall be considered to be a separate 

12 regular session of the State legislature. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40141 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. YESEN I A LEAL D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 99- C R
- 372- 7 B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Y e s e n ia L e a l, fe d e r a l p r is o n e r#9 2 5 2 4 -0 7 9 , a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s den i al of h er m ot i on t o com pel t h e G overnm en t t o f i l e a m ot i on f

or r edu ct i on of sentence pu rsuan tt o F ED . R . C RIM . P . 3 5 (b ). R u le 3 5 (b ) d o e s n o t p r o v id e aju r is d ic tio n a l b a s is u p o n w h ic h to e n te r ta in L e a l’ s m o tio n . S ee Un itedS ta tes v . Ea rly , 2 7 F .3d 1 4 0 , 1 4 1 -4 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). T h e G overnm en t ’ s r ef u salt o f i l e a R u l e 35 m ot i on is revi ew able on l y i f i ti s based o n a n u n c o n s tit u tio n a l m o tiv e , w h ic h L e a l d o e s n o t a lle g e . SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40141

2 S n eed , 63 F . 3d 381 , 389 n. 6 ( 5th C i r. 199 5) . Lea l ’ s m ot i on i s t h u s un au t h ori zed a n dthe distri ct cou rt an dthis cou rt both l a ck j u ri sd i cti on to c o n s id er it . Acc o r di ngly, t he a ppe ali s D I SM I SSED f o rl ac k o f

j ur i s di c t i o n.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0120

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JACOB JON IDLAND,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 13, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 3 2023

01/03/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0120
NUMBER 13-15-00349-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MARCOS LUCIO D/B/A 

LIGHTHOUSE CREDIT 

SOLUTIONS, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 430th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s opposed motion for additional time 

to obtain adequate legal representation. On October 28, 2015, this Court granted 

appellant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Appellant is requesting until December 9, 2015, 
2

to obtain legal representation.

Accordingly, the appeal is abated to provide appellant with the opportunity to seek 

new counsel. This appeal is ordered ABATED until December 9, 2015, or upon further 

order of this Court. 

Appellant is directed to notify the Court promptly if he retains new counsel on 

appeal by filing a notice including that attorney’s name, mailing address, telephone 

number, facsimile number, email address, and State Bar of Texas identification number. 

See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 6. 

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed this the

23rd day of November, 2015.
SCPW-14-0000887

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

LIVIA SCOTTO, Petitioner,

vs.

HAWAI#I PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the documents filed by Petitioner

Livia Scotto, on June 13, 2014, which we review as a petition for

a writ of mandamus, and the record, it appears that Petitioner

fails to demonstrate that she has a clear and indisputable right

to the requested relief, and she can raise her eviction-related

concerns before the Hawai#i Public Housing Authority’s eviction

board and in any subsequent judicial review process. See Haw.

Rev. Stat. §§ 356D-93, 356D-94, 356D-96, and 356D-97. 

Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. 

See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999)

(a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-14-0000887

18-JUN-2014

10:19 AM
issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable

right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress

adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action);

Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai#i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361

(1996) (mandamus relief is available to compel an official to

perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the

individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is

ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt,

and no other remedy is available). Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 18, 2014.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
THIS PLACE-HOLDER PAGE REPLACES THE

SURFACE TENSION REPORT CLAIMED CBI 

(54 PAGES)
#### Simon Price *v.*Reding Scales & Thomas Lockhart.

1 From Johnston.

PRACTICE. — A capias is sued out against A. and B. and is served Oil A. An *alias*and then a *pluries*capias are issued against B. which are returned “ not found/’ A. shall be allowed to plead to the action, and the Plaintiff to come to issue as to him.

This was an action of trespass *-oi el armis,*and the capias had been served on Lockhart of the Defendants ; after which an *alias*and *pluries*capias issued against Scales the other Defendant, on both of which the Sheriff returned *“*that Scales was not to be foundand thereupon Lockhart moved to plead to the action, and that the Plaintiff be compelled to come to issue as to him; which motion was sent to this Court; and

By the Court.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Defendant Lockhart, is entitled to plead and to demand that issue be joined as to him. Let the motion be allowed.
Wood, Gil 

Subject: 

Location: 

Start: 

End: 

Recurrence: 

Meeting Status: 

Organizer: 

Required Attendees: 

Optional Attendees: 

Blaze King conference call 

DCRoomARS7140/DC-Ariei-Rios-OECA-OC 

Fri 4/4/2014 2:00PM 

Fri 4/4/2014 3:00PM 

(none) 

Accepted 

Banks, Julius 

Sanchez, Rafael; cneufeld@blazeking.com; Yellin, Patrick 

Messina, Edward; Duffy, Rick; Wood, Gil 

Chris Neufeld of Blaze King has offered to present an overview of the differences between catalytic and non-catalytic 

stoves. 

His presentation will describe how catalytic wood stoves and non-catalytic wood stoves differ in design, emissions 

reduction methods, and burn characteristics. 

Blaze King -

EXP02014.ppt 

1
| (1)   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of1934; |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:       November      14, 2008 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

| /s/ Christopher G.      Payan                                           Christopher      G. PayanChief      Executive Officer |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| /s/ Brian P.      Alessi                                           Brian      P. AlessiChief      Financial Officer           |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Mathsen, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 549]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered October 14, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and brief submitted by defense counsel and agree that there are no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised by defendant on appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction should be affirmed and defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw granted.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 05, 2024.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 05, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24I0210. MONSANTO COMPANY v. JOHN BARNES.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

21A444
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) In connection with the Report of Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc., an Ohio corporation (the
Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Christopher F. Zerull, Chief Accounting
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350), that to 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. Date: January 21, 2005 /s/ Christopher F. Zerull
Christopher F. Zerull
Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

-- Page 1

(Electronic Format)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

District: Imperial County Air Pollution Control District

Rule No(s): 202 Date adopted/Amended/Rescinded: Amended February 9, 2016

Rule Title(s): Exemption

Date Submitted to ARB: March 29, 2016

If an Amended Rule, Date Last Amended (or Adopted): 1 0/ 10 /20 06

Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? Yes No ( If No, do not complete remainder of form)

District Contact: Reyes Romero Phone Number: 442

- 265

- 1800 E

- mail Address: reyesromero @co.imperial.ca.us

Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Changes: New Rule Amended Rule

Rule 2 02 was amended to update the sections where Large Confined Animal Facilities thresholds are referenced.

Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Check): ROG (NOx) SO2

(CO) PM TAC (name):

II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS

Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when implemented, will result in quantifiable changes in emissions. Attach reference(s) for emission

factor(s) and other information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emission information provided below was determined

.

Net Effect on Emissions: Increase Decrease N/A

Emission Reduction Commitment in SIP for this Source Category: NONE

Inventory Year Used to Calculate Changes in Emissions: N / A Area Affected: N / A

Future Year Control Profile Estim ate (Provide information on as many years as possible) :

N /

ACALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

-- Page 2

(Electronic Format)

Baseline Inventory in the SIP for the Control Measure: N /A

Emissions Reduction Commitment in the SIP for the Control Measure: N/A

Revised Baseline Inventory (if any): N/A

Revised Emission Reduction Estimate (if developed): N/A

Note that the district’s input to the Rule Evaluation Form will not be used as input to the ARB’s emission forecasting and

planning.

III. SOUR CES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

District is: Attainment Nonattainment Split

Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Sources Affected by this Amendment: N/A

Percent in Nonattainment Area: N / A %

Number of Large ( > 100 TPY) Sources Controlled: N/A Percent in Nonattainment Area: N/A %

Name(s) and Location(s) (city and county) of Large ( > 100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule (Attach additional sheet s as

necessary) : NA

IV. EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Does the Rule Include Emission Limits that are Continuous? Yes No

If Yes, Those Limits are in Section(s) N/A of the Rule.

Other Met hods in the Rule for Achieving Emission Reductions are: N / A

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

The Rule Contains:

Emission Limits in Section(s): N/A Work Practice Standards in Section(s): N / A

Recordkeeping Requirements in Section(s): N / A Reporting Requirements in Section(s): N / ACALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

-- Page 3

(Electronic Format)

5/1/2002 3

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN

No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts attainment

Discussion: N / A