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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2146 

To amend the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to require the Secretary of Homeland Security 

to provide notice to State authorities when unaccompanied alien children 

are placed in that State. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2017 

Mr. ROE of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. FLEISCHMANN, Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mr. DESJARLAIS, 

and Mrs. BLACK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide notice to State 

authorities when unaccompanied alien children are placed 

in that State. 

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 ‘‘Unaccompanied Alien 

5 Children Placement Transparency Act of 2017’’. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2146 IH

1 SEC. 2. HHS NOTIFICATION OF STATE AUTHORITIES. 

2 Section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking 

3 Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (8 U.S.C. 

4 1232) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(j) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—In the case of an 

6 unaccompanied alien child who is in Federal custody by 

7 reason of the child’s immigration status, the Secretary of 

8 Health and Human Services or the Secretary of Homeland 

9 Security shall provide the Governor and each appropriate 

10 agency of a State, not later than 60 days after that child 

11 is placed into the care of a custodian located in such 

12 State— 

13 ‘‘(1) any available medical records for the child, 

14 if the child will be attending public schools in that 

15 State; 

16 ‘‘(2) the physical address and immigration sta17 tus of the custodian of the child; 

18 ‘‘(3) any Federal public benefit (as such term 

19 is defined in section 411(c) of the Personal Respon20 sibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 

21 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611)) that the child will receive; 

22 and 

23 ‘‘(4) any Federal public benefit that the custo24 dian of the child will receive that the custodian 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 2146 IH

1 would not receive except for having custody of the 

2 child.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
#### Carrie A. Black *vs.*Ernest E. Black.

Knox County.

Decided March 29, 1922.

An action to recover for money had and received. The parties were formerly man and wife. Differences arose and the plaintiff contends that terms of separation were agreed upon; and that in consideration of her signing a deed and releasing her interest in the real estate, it was agreed that she should receive two thirds of the net proceeds of the sale of all their property including the real estate and their household goods, and in case she applied for a divorce she would not seek alimony or ask for counsel fees.

The defendant contended that no agreement was ever reached as to a division of the proceeds of the sale of the property; that she signed the deed of the real estate for another consideration entirely, and whatever talk was made relative to division of the property was upon the condition that she should apply for a divorce, and if any agreement was arrived at it was without consideration and not binding. The divorce was obtained on libel of the defendant, though it appears one was also filed by the plaintiff.

' The evidence was somewhat conflicting as to the amount of the net proceeds of the sale of the property, — the defendant claiming *585it did not exceed twenty-five hundred dollars, and the plaintiff contended it was in excess of three thousand dollars.

*R. I. Thompson and O. H. Emery,*for plaintiff.

*E. K Gould,*for defendant.

The questions in dispute were solely of fact and for the jury. The issues were clearly presented by the presiding Justice. The jury evidently found that the preponderance of the evidence supported the plaintiff’s contention as to an agreement being arrived at, but found the amount received was as contended by the defendant. While the evidence was conflicting and discloses a regrettable lack of appreciation on both sides of their marital responsibilities, and the jury’s verdict was arrived at only after additional instructions by the court upon the importance of their agreeing, we cannot say upon the record before us that it is manifestly wrong. Motion over-

ruled.
# C_2004227EN.01000602.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3478 — RIVR/PETROPLUS)

(2004/C 227/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 September 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3478. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3478. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex)

---
EXHIBIT 24.1

UNITEDGLOBALCOM, INC.
POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Michael T. Fries, Frederick G. Westerman III and/or
Valerie L. Cover his or her attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution, for him or her in any and all capacities, to sign the annual report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 of UnitedGlobalCom, Inc. (the "Company"), to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission"),
and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and the documents in connection therewith, with the Commission; granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact full power and authority to perform any other act on behalf of the undersigned required to be done in the premises, hereby ratifying and confirming all that
said attorneys-in-fact may lawfully do or cause to be done on behalf of the Company by virtue hereof.

March 11, 2004

/s/ROBERT R. BENNETTRobert R. Bennett,DirectorMarch 11, 2004

/s/CHARLES H.R. BRACKENCharles H.R. Bracken,Co-Chief Financial OfficerMarch 11, 2004

/s/JOHN P. COLE, JR.John P. Cole, Jr.,DirectorMarch 11, 2004

/s/VALERIE L. COVERValerie L. Cover,Vice President, Controller and Co-Principal Accounting
OfficerMarch 11, 2004

/s/JOHN W. DICKJohn W. Dick,DirectorMarch 11, 2004

/s/MICHAEL T. FRIESMichael T. Fries,President, Chief Executive Officer and DirectorMarch 11, 2004

/s/PAUL A. GOULDPaul A. Gould,DirectorMarch 11, 2004

/s/GARY S. HOWARDGary S. Howard,DirectorMarch 11, 2004

/s/DAVID B. KOFFDavid B. Koff,DirectorMarch 11, 2004

/s/JOHN C. MALONEJohn C. Malone,DirectorMarch 11, 2004

/s/RUTH PIRIERuth Pirie,Co-Principal Accounting OfficerMarch 11, 2004

/s/GENE W. SCHNEIDERGene W. Schneider,ChairmanMarch 11, 2004

/s/MARK L. SCHNEIDERMark L. Schneider,DirectorMarch 11, 2004

/s/FREDERICK G. WESTERMAN IIIFrederick G. Westerman III,Co-Chief Financial Officer


---

QuickLinks
================================================================================


                                EXHIBIT 1 TO THE
                                  FORM 40-F of
                         PRECISION DRILLING CORPORATION
                               Dated May 15, 2003



                               Consent of KPMG LLP








================================================================================

<PAGE>

================================================================================

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
Precision Drilling Corporation

We consent to the use of our audit report (the "Audit Report") dated February
11, 2003 except for Note 20 which is at March 6, 2003 on the consolidated
balance sheets of Precision Drilling Corporation as at December 31, 2002 and
2001, and the consolidated statements of earnings and retained earnings and cash
flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2002
included in this annual report on Form 40-F. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of the Audit Report in the Registration Statement
(form S-8 No. 333-14284) pertaining to the Precision Drilling Corporation 2003
Stock Option Plan.





/s/ KPMG
---------------------
Chartered Accountants

Calgary, Canada
May15, 2003






================================================================================

<PAGE>

================================================================================


      COMMENTS BY AUDITOR FOR US READERS ON CANADA-US REPORTING DIFFERENCES


In the United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of
an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when there is a
change in accounting principles that has a material effect on the comparability
of the company's financial statements, such as the change described in Note 2(a)
to the financial statements. Our report to the shareholders dated February 11,
2003, except for Note 20 which is at March 6, 2003, incorporated by reference
herein, is expressed in accordance with Canadian reporting standards which do
not require a reference to such a change in accounting principles in the
auditors' report when the change is properly accounted for and adequately
disclosed in the financial statements.





/s/ KPMG
---------------------
Chartered Accountants

Calgary, Canada
February 11, 2003 except for Note 20 which is at March 6, 2003



================================================================================
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                            Exhibit 11
                                            RISCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                      Statement Re Computation of Per Share Loss
                                  (in thousands, except share and per share amounts)


                                                                                            Three Months Ended March 31
                                                                                       ---------------------------------------
                                                                                             2000                  1999
                                                                                       -----------------     -----------------
                                                                                         (Unaudited)            (Unaudited)

<S>                                                                                    <C>                   <C>
Net loss                                                                               $        (124)        $         (839)
                                                                                       =============         ==============

Weighted average common and common share equivalents outstanding:

     Average number of common shares outstanding                                          36,868,114             36,868,114
     Restricted stock vested                                                               1,054,167                479,167
                                                                                       -------------         --------------
    Weighted average common shares outstanding - (basic)                                  37,922,281             37,347,281
                                                                                       =============         ==============

     Weighted average common and common share
           equivalents outstanding - (diluted)                                            37,922,281             37,347,281
                                                                                       =============         ==============
Net loss per common share--basic                                                       $       (0.00)        $        (0.02)
                                                                                       ==============        ==============

Net loss per common share--diluted                                                     $       (0.00)        $        (0.02)
                                                                                       =============         ==============




</TABLE>

<PAGE>
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 11.1

                                XETEL CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                         IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE DATA
                                   (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Three Months Ended
                                                    -------------------
                                                    June 27,   June 28,
                                                      1998       1997
                                                    --------   --------
<S>                                                  <C>        <C>   
Basic earnings per share:
      Weighted average shares outstanding             9,008      8,811
                                                     ======     ======

      Net income                                     $  684     $  455
                                                     ======     ======

      Basic earnings per share                       $ 0.08     $ 0.05
                                                     ======     ======

Diluted earnings per share:
      Weighted average shares outstanding             9,008      8,811

      Common stock equivalents: stock options (1)       687        827
                                                     ------     ------
                                                      9,695      9,638
                                                     ======     ======

      Net income                                     $  684     $  455
                                                     ======     ======

      Diluted earnings per share                     $ 0.07     $ 0.05
                                                     ======     ======
</TABLE>


(1) Stock options based on the treasury stock method using average market price.
# C_2004262EN.01000102.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 9 September 2004

in Case C-332/01: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 1996 to 1999 - Decision 2001/557/EC - Cotton, olive oil, dried grapes, sheepmeat and goatmeat)

(2004/C 262/02)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-304/01: Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos and I. Chalkias) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) — application for annulment under Article 230 EC brought on 3 September 2001 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.

1

---
# Surface Drain, Main or Lateral (Ft.) (608) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Surface Drain, Main or Lateral (Ft.) (608) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Surface Drain, Main or Lateral (Ft.) (608).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide websihttps://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/te.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Surface Drain, Main or Lateral (Ft.) (608) (9/15) Standard Document(123.69 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Surface Drain, Main or Lateral (Ft.) (608) Overview(181.6 KB)

Surface Drain, Main or Lateral (Ft.) (608) CPPE(25.58 KB)

Surface Drain, Main or Lateral (Ft.) (608) Network Effects Diagram(66.5 KB)

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Corautus Genetics Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard E. Otto, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

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

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

Date: May 15, 2006 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Corautus Genetics Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Robert T. Atwood, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

(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: May 15, 2006 

 

/s/ ROBERT T. ATWOOD
Name: Robert T. AtwoodTitle: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Sitzberger, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and others, Respondents,

For the *appellant: L. J. Fellens*of Fond du Lac.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *James E. Finnegan,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
*February 10, 1931.*

#### Yankow, Appellant, vs. Allen, Respondent.

For the appellant: *L. J. Fellenz*of Fond du Lac.

For the respondent: *Rouiller & D.ougherty*of Milwaukee, attorneys, and *Bouck, Hilton, Klwwin & Dempsey*of Oshkosh and *Thomas A. Byrne*of Milwaukee of counsel.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6331

PHILLIP E. HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FREDERICK COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER, Sheriff’s Department; OFFICER MERCER; OFFICER PERDEE; LINDA WEBB, Nurse; DOCTOR NOBI; ROBERT HARGIS, State’s Attorney; RANDY MARTIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA00-243-DKC) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 3, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip E. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on February 28, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on March 1, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Phillip E. Hill appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hill v. Frederick County Adult Detention Ctr. , No. CA-00-243-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 1, 2000). * We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    The Form 10-K of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the period ended December
31, 2007 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership.
  By:
    
    /s/ C. Reynolds Thompson, IIIC. Reynolds Thompson, IIIChief Executive Officer of Colonial PropertiesTrust, the general partner of Colonial RealtyLimited Partnership
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KHALID ME AL-MOUSA, 

Petitioner, No. 06-70638

v. Agency No. 

M A79-378-238 ICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney

General, ORDER

Respondent. 

Filed September 22, 2008

Before: Betty B. Fletcher, William C. Canby, Jr., and

Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion, published at 518 F.3d 738, is WITHDRAWN.

It may not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit. 

The Petition for Panel Rehearing is GRANTED. A memorandum disposition replacing the prior opinion is filed simultaneously with this order. 

New petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en

banc may be filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13353
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.