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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1236 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1236

 To discontinue a Federal program that authorizes State and local law 
 enforcement officers to investigate, apprehend, and detain aliens in 
     accordance with a written agreement with the Director of U.S. 
  Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to clarify that immigration 
      enforcement is solely a function of the Federal Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2017

 Mr. Quigley (for himself, Ms. Jayapal, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Conyers, Mr. 
   Cummings, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Moore, Mr. Soto, Mr. McGovern, Ms. 
   Roybal-Allard, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Vargas, and Mr. 
 Blumenauer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To discontinue a Federal program that authorizes State and local law 
 enforcement officers to investigate, apprehend, and detain aliens in 
     accordance with a written agreement with the Director of U.S. 
  Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to clarify that immigration 
      enforcement is solely a function of the Federal Government.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting the Rights Of Towns 
against federal Enforcement contrary to Constitutional Tenets for 
Immigration Act of 2017'' or as the ``PROTECT Immigration Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF STATE AND LOCAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT 
              AUTHORITY.

    Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1357(g)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(g) Except as provided in paragraphs (10) and (11) of section 
103(a), in section 274(c), and in section 439 of the Antiterrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1252c), the authority to 
inquire about or verify immigration or citizenship status and to 
investigate, apprehend, arrest, or detain an individual for a violation 
of this Act or any regulation authorized by this Act is restricted to 
immigration officers and authorized employees of the Department of 
Homeland Security and subject to limits set forth in other provisions 
of law.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 91-6000.

#### Bates *v.*Nagle, Warden, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
GERALD C. MANN 

A.rwoxlu- e-PAX. 

Hon. M. 0. Flowers 

Secretary of State 

Austin, Texas 

Aun~lov 11. TEXAS 

Dear Sir: Opiaion Hc. O-2039 

Re: puipese puipese olauee of proposed proposed charter net within purview purview of Section Section 

2 cf Article Article 1302, Revised Revised Civil 

Statutes of Texas, 1925. 

This will acknewledgc receipt of your letter of March 4, 1940, in 

which ycu request the opinion of this depal-hnent as to whethk;- or not the pub 

pose clause contained in the charter application of "Latin Sons of Texas" is 

within the purview of Section 2, Article 1302, oftfte Revised Civil Statutes of 

Texas, 1925. The purpose olause acataiaed in the application isr 

"Its'purposes shall be to dducate all native born Texans as to their duties, 

rights and privileges as American citizens and further-to do allthings necessary aad prcper to raise their educational standards from a cultural standpoint in order that they may bec~e better oitieens." 

Our opinions Nos. O-1028 and lC32, approved July 22, 1939, and 

0-117l, appreved April 19, 1939, the originals ef which were sent to your department, dealt with similar questions. 

We have carefully reviewed such cpinians and the authorities therein cited and believe than te be determinative of the question here submitted. 

It is cur opinion that the abve quoted purpcse clause is not within the purview of Section 2, Article 1302. 

Very truly yours 

W,AWregr 

ATTOPR-RYGRRSRALOFTRXAS 

By /s/Lloyd Armstrong 

Lloyd Armstrong 

Assistant 

APPROVED 

Opinicn Ccnmittee 

Ey BWS Chairmaa
No. 82-1018.

#### Shuffman, Executrix of the Estate of Shuffman *v.*Hartford Textile Corp. et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S256]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

  The following reports of committees were submitted:

       By Mr. SCHUMER, from the Joint Economic Committee:
       Special Report entitled ``2008 Joint Economic Report'' 
     (Rept. No. 111-1). Minority views filed.
       By Mr. KERRY, from the Committee on Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship:
       Special Report entitled ``Summary of Legislative and 
     Oversight Activities During the 110th Congress'' (Rept. No. 
     111-2).

                          ____________________
```
Argued and submitted January 29,

resubmitted In Banc May 5,

affirmed June 23, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MITCHELL MARLIN BURNS, *Appellant.*

(90CR-0586; CA A72933)

854 P2d 961

David C. Degner, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

J. Dean Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

De MUNIZ, J.

*375De MUNIZ, J.

Defendant was convicted on two counts of attempted rape in the third degree. ORS 163.355. In his single assignment of error, he contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuance. We review for abuse of discretion, *State v. Higley,*99 Or App 298, 301, 781 P2d 1245 (1989), and affirm.

Defendant was indicted in December, 1990, and the court appointed counsel for him. Defendant’s trial was originally scheduled for January 31,1991, but that date was reset to May 2. On April 30, the trial date was rescheduled for June 27. The reasons for those continuances do not appear in the record.

Defendant’s attorney withdrew from the case some time in May, 1991, and the court appointed a new attorney for him on May 23. Late in the afternoon, on the day before trial, defendant filed a motion requesting another continuance. His new attorney submitted an affidavit in support of that motion. According to the affidavit, the file provided by defendant’s former attorney did not contain defendant’s current address. Consequently, the new attorney had been unable to locate defendant. Defendant contacted his lawyer on June 20 or 21 and met with him for the first time on June 24, three days before the trial.

The affidavit focuses on the fact that the attorney did not meet his client until three days before the trial and asserts that he therefore did not have adequate time to prepare for the trial. Although the attorney may not have been in contact with defendant, nothing in the record indicates that he could not have engaged in discovery and pre-trial preparation during the month before the trial was scheduled to occur. He offered no explanation why he had not advised the court, during that month, that he had been unable to locate his client. Instead he waited until the eve of trial to file the motion and the day of trial to argue it.

Defendant’s attorney had an entire month following his appointment to ask the court for a continuance, but he chose to wait until the afternoon before the trial to ask for one. That procrastination placed an unreasonable burden on the state, its witnesses and the court. That is an abuse of the *376system. The court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a continuance.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1



Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Conrad D. Clement, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Featherlite, Inc.;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



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



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



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



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



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



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 12, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Conrad D. Clement  
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

158 

CA 15-00590 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

CATHERINE M. HEARY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DENISE HIBIT AND ERIK M. HIBIT, 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

BOUVIER PARTNERSHIP, LLP, BUFFALO (NORMAN E.S. GREENE OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

GROSS SHUMAN BRIZDLE & GILFILLAN, P.C., BUFFALO (SARAH P. RERA OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L.

Michalski, A.J.), entered July 21, 2014. The order, insofar as

appealed from, denied that part of the motion of defendants to compel

plaintiff to submit to an independent medical examination by an

orthopedist.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendants’ motion

is granted in its entirety. 

Same memorandum as in Heary v Hibit ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___

[Apr. 29, 2016]).

Entered: April 29, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
No. 85-1948.

#### Dunning, Director of the Nebraska Department of Public Welfare, et al. *v.*Nebraska Health Care Assn., Inc., et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40901

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE NELSON ARGUETA, also known as Jose N. Argeti,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-966-1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Nelson Argueta raises 

an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 

198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 2015 WL 3867557 (Nov. 30, 2015) (No. 

14-10355), in which this court held that an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior felony conviction of a drug trafficking offense is 

warranted regardless whether the prior conviction required proof of 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40901 Document: 00513307551 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
No. 15-40901

2

remuneration or commercial activity. Accordingly, the motion for summary

disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40901 Document: 00513307551 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-205-2024]

                    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, grantee of FTZ 220, requesting subzone status for the facility of Wurth Electronics Midcom, Inc., located in Watertown, South Dakota. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 20, 2024.                          ( print page 92893)    

The proposed subzone (8.03 acres) is located at 121 Airport Drive, Watertown, South Dakota. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 220.

In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

                    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:                     *ftz@trade.gov.*                     The closing period for their receipt is January 6, 2025. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted through January 21, 2025.                

                    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via                     *www.trade.gov/​ftz.*

                    For further information, contact Camille Evans at                     *Camille.Evans@trade.gov.*

Dated: November 20, 2024.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-27581 Filed 11-22-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
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		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# USS Green Bay Visits Cairns Ahead of Talisman Saber 

By MC3 Sarah Myers, USS Green Bay Public Affairs 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
NO. 07-06-0259-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JULY 26, 2006

______________________________

FRANKIE ALVAREZ, 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF SWISHER COUNTY;

NO. A-3944-0504; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., PRESIDING

_______________________________

Order of Dismissal

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Appellant, Frankie Alvarez, appeals his conviction for deadly conduct. We dismiss

the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. 

The record before us discloses that sentence was imposed upon appellant in open

court on March 20, 2006. Thus, he had until April 19, 2006, to either file a notice of appeal

or a motion for new trial and thereby extend the deadline to file a notice of appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a) (discussing the deadlines by which one must perfect an appeal).
1

Permission to perfect an untimely appeal may be sought through art. 11.07 of the Texas Code of

Criminal Procedure.

2

The record discloses that his motion for new trial was filed on April 20, 2006, and notice

of appeal on June 20, 2006. Given this, appellant’s effort to perfect an appeal was

untimely. Moreover, this circumstance was made known to appellant by letter from this

court dated July 13, 2006. In that letter, appellant and his counsel were also given

opportunity to respond. No response has been received to date. 

A timely filed notice of appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. Olivo

v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). If it is untimely, then we can take

no action other than to dismiss the proceeding. Id. at 523. Appellant's notice being

untimely filed, we have no jurisdiction over the matter and dismiss the appeal.1

Brian Quinn

 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 133843 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133843 COA: 276157 Wayne CC: 03-014033-01 MICHAEL RICARDO POLK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 14, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
# Santee Cooper - Grainger Generating Station

Ash Pond Closure Engineering Schedule

ENGINEERING
Notice to Proceed Engineering and Design Pond 1 Stormwater Design / Initial Grading Pond 1 Dike Fortification and Vault Design Field Study - Supplemental Pond 1 Ash Limits Delineation Bench Testing of Ash Handling Pond 1/2 Volume Analyses / Final Grading Adjustment Pond 2 Wetland Restoration Design Technical Specifications, Calculations, Drawings Client Reivew / Incorporate Comments (periodic) Submit Closure Plan for Regulatory Review Engineering Year 1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 6 months
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 
**- 2471** 

THOMAS FRANCIS STACK, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
OUTSTANDING MARINE; JAMES E. STACK; COLONEL GEORGE JOHNSON, MD/DNR; OFFICER R. KAUFMAN; OFFICER PHILLIPS; JOHN GRIFFIN, Maryland Department of Natural Resources; BRENDA DONALD, Maryland Human Resources Agency; SKIP BOLINGER; CARL SNOWDEN, Civil Rights Director; STEVEN P. LEMMEY; GIANT FOOD; RICHARD BAKER; TERRY KOKOLIS; JOHN E. GUNNING; EDWARD A. HOLDEN; Harbo rmaster J. P. WALTERS; BRUCE LALONDE, Director, Oasis Opportunity Center; OFFICER GARVEY; MARY STACK DIXON ,
Defendants

– Appellees,

and

STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (Police) ,
Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. William M. Nickerson , Senior District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv
- 01835

- WMN )

Submitted : February 27 , 2014 Decided: March 4 , 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Thomas Francis Stack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Thomas Francis Stack, Jr., appeals the district

court ’ s order s dismissin g his civil complaints and denying

reconsideration

. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Stack v. Outstanding Marine , No. 1:13

-

cv
- 01835

- WMN (D. Md. Nov. 7, 2013)

. We deny Stack’s motion for
appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED