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

Calendar No. 346 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1761 

[Report No. 114–202] 

To take certain Federal land located in Lassen County, California, into 

trust for the benefit of the Susanville Indian Rancheria, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 14, 2015 

Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

JANUARY 12, 2016 

Reported by Mr. BARRASSO, without amendment 

A BILL 

To take certain Federal land located in Lassen County, California, into trust for the benefit of the Susanville Indian 

Rancheria, 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, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1761 RS

1 SECTION 1. LAND INTO TRUST FOR THE SUSANVILLE IN2 DIAN RANCHERIA. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The land described in subsection 

4 (b) is taken into trust for the benefit of the Susanville 

5 Indian Rancheria, subject to valid existing rights. 

6 (b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land taken into trust 

7 under subsection (a) is the approximately 301 acres of 

8 Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the 

9 Bureau of Land Management identified as ‘‘Conveyance 

10 Boundary’’ on the map titled ‘‘Susanville Indian 

11 Rancheria Land Conveyance’’ and dated December 31, 

12 2014. 

13 (c) GAMING.—Class II gaming and class III gaming 

14 under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 

15 et seq.) shall not be allowed at any time on the land taken 

16 into trust under subsection (a). 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 346 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1761 

[Report No. 114–202] 

A BILL 

To take certain Federal land located in Lassen 

purposes. the Susanville Indian Rancheria, and for other County, California, into trust for the benefit of 

JANUARY 12, 2016 

Reported without amendment 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Opinion issued December 3, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 20
- 00793
- CR

——————————— IN RE STEPHEN CHRISTOPHER SCOTT , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Stephen Christopher Scott , has filed a pro se petition for writ of
mandamus , seeking to compel the trial court to perform its ministerial function to hold a hearing and/or rule on relator’s pro se motion for a speedy trial

. 1
We d ismiss re lator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction

.

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Stephen Christopher Scott , Cause No. 16 62162 , in the 339 th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jesse McClure, III presiding.2

Relator has filed his petition for writ of mandamus pro se. However, a review
of the record establishes that in the underlying case the trial court has entered an “Order Appointing Counsel,” sta ting that relator is indigent and providing him with

court

- appointed counsel.
Criminal defendants are not entitled to hybrid representation in the same case
and a “ trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is repres ented by counsel. ” Robinson v. State , 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). As such, “a trial court's decision not to rule on a pro se motion” is not subject to review. Id. Similarly, relator is not entitled to hybrid representation before
this C ourt, and relator's pro se petition for writ of mandamus presents nothing for
this Court to review. See Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (because appellant was represented by counsel and was not entitled to hybrid representatio n, appellant's pro se supplemental brief presented nothing for review); Gray v. Shipley , 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding) (overruling pro se motion for leave to file mandamus petition because relator was represente d by appointed trial counsel and not entitled to hybrid representation)

.3

Accordingly, w e dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. 2 All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Adams

. Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).

2 Even if this Court had jurisdiction to consider relator’s petition for writ of mandamus , we would not grant the relief requested by relator because the record does not include any evidence that relator’s m otion for s peedy t rial was actually filed or otherwise presented or brought to the attention of the trial court for its consideration. See In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.

— Amaril lo, orig. proceeding) (“Indeed, one can hardly be faulted for doing nothing if he were never aware of the need to act.”).
exv10w3






10.3 Maximum Property Guarantee Contract, dated July 13, 2009, by and among

Shandong Xiangrui, and Shandong Xinrui Chemical Devices Co., Ltd., and Citibank

Shanghai, for RMB 80 million





	•	 	Main Contents







	 	•	 	Contract No.: MR748004090713







	 	•	 	Execution Date: July 13, 2009







	 	•	 	Guarantor: Shandong Xiangrui Pharmacy Co., Ltd., and Shandong Xinrui
Chemical Devices Co., Ltd.







	 	•	 	Guarantee: Citibank Shanghai







	 	•	 	As guarantor, Shandong Xiangrui Pharmacy Co., Ltd. and Shandong Xinrui
Chemical Devices Co., Ltd. undertake to assume joint and several liabilities for
Runyin Bio-chemical Co., Ltd’s indebtedness towards Citibank Shanghai under a
Uncommitted Short Term Cycling Finance Agreement with Contract No.: FA748004090713.







	 	•	 	Guarantee Items: Shandong Xiangrui Pharmacy Co., Ltd. agreed to created
mortgage over land use right (Certificate No.: Dong Guo Yong 2008 No. 31; area:
43,249 m2) and the properties (Certificate No.: Dong Guo Yong 2008 No. 10288; area:
12,713 m2) to secure the payment of the debts under the main loan agreement. Shandong
Xinrui Chemical Devices Co., Ltd. agreed to created mortgage over land use right
(Certificate No.: Dong Guo Yong 2008 No. 513; area: 39,575 m2) and the properties
(Certificate No.: Dong Guo Yong 2008 No. 10289; area: 5,897.42 m2) to secure the
payment of the debts under the main loan agreement.







	 	•	 	The maximum amount of the guarantee is RMB 57,686,231.







	 	•	 	The mortgage term is from August 10, 2009 to August 10, 2014.







	 	•	 	Secured Items: the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, damages,
compensation and all the expenses incurred for Citibank (China) Co., Ltd., Shanghai
Branch to realize its creditor’s right under Loan Agreement.







	 	•	 	Liabilities of Breach of Contract: Guarantor shall compensate guarantee any
loss suffered from Shandong Runyin Bio-chemical Co., Ltd.’s breach of contract.




 


 









 











	•	 	Headlines of the articles omitted







	 	•	 	Commitment of guarantor







	 	•	 	Assumption of guarantor’s responsibility







	 	•	 	Dispute settlement







	 	•	 	Miscellaneous







	 	•	 	Effectiveness







	 	•	 	Validity







	 	•	 	Attention
Bob Bevilacqua

Town of Harrietstown - Supervisor

39 Main Street

Saranac Lake, NY 12983

Dear Supervisor Bevilacqua

Iam a resident of your neighbor, The Town of Santa Clara. That said, Ihope you wilt

consider my perspective on the air service to the airport that serves both towns and the

surrounding area.

Iam often out of town because, as the letterhead indicates, my work takes me to

Syracuse much of the work week. However, , am very much involved in the Saranac

Lake community as well as the community of the Adirondack Park. Iam currently on the

board of Paul Smith's College, The Adirondack North Country Association, and the

Adirondack Bureau of the Wildlife Conservation Society. My wife is on the board of The

Trudeau Institute. Not only do we spend a great deal of time involved with these

organizations as board members, we come in frequent contact with others who travel to

board meetings, some from great distances. We are also aware of at least some of the

travels of staff, leadership and faculty. These are people who use the airport and would

use it more with increased service. Many of these people donate their time and drive six

or more hours to meetings. Some travel to conferences to present papers. others are "on

the road" raising money.

I write to request that DOT, the town, the state all seek and support increased air service

to the Harrietstown Airport. Boston service has been important. It has grown and

prospered with Cape Air. It now has a critical mass that makes it a viable and valuable

service and, in my opinion Cope Air is doing a great job. Three flights per day works and

works well from Boston and I would not want to see that service reduced.

I also know that most of the people I work with and the board members for the boards I

am on travel from or through the New York City metropolitan area. Iam therefore writing

to support the addition of service to New York City in the EASprogram that is so

important to Saranac Lake, Tupper Lake and the region.

Ido not write on behalf of any organization Iam on the board of. Iam the classic private

citizen. I am not a CEO or a COO or an Executive Director. However, I know how much

my friends and follow volunteers could benefit by air service to NYC. I know that

researchers and administrators at WCS, PSC, Trudeau, etc. all would be able to enhance

their work, travel with more options and less inconvenience. We could attract more

entrepreneurs who need access to New York City.

I will not go on further but do want to add my appreciation for the service of Cape Air. It

isn't often that a large business like Cape Air has the skill to support small improvements

and smaller cities and towns.

vty

James L. Sonneborn

BOUSQUETHOLSTEINPLLC

110 West Foyette Street! One Lincoln Center, Suite 900 I Syracuse, New York 13202-1387

Tel: 315.701,,6316 I Fax: 315.423.2804 I Email: JSonneborn@BHI A Wl'LlCcorY} I
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30758

Summary Calendar

ANTHONY RAINES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BARON KAYLO; RABAYLA, Warden; UNKNOWN OFFICER,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(01-CV-458)

-------------------- October 15, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Raines, Louisiana prisoner

#350255, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §

1983 complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), as

frivolous. Raines contends that the district court erred in

refusing to appoint counsel to represent him in this suit. He also

asserts that the district court impro perly dismissed his claims

against prison officials for violating the Eighth Amend ment by

failing to protect him from injuries incurred during an attack by

another inmate.2

As Raines’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint did not involve any

exceptional circumstances, and as the do cuments filed by Raines

i ndicate that he was able to present his claims to th e court

adequately and intelligently, the district court was not compelled

to appoint counsel for Raines. See Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d

209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).

Not every injury “by one prisoner at the hands of another

. . . translates into constitutional liability for prison officials

responsible for the victim’s safety.” F armer v. Brennan

, 511 U.S.

825, 834 (1994). Raines has not shown that he was “incarcerated

under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and that

prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his need for

protection.” Neals v. Norwood , 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, the district court was within its discretion in

dismissing Raines’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims as

frivolous. S iglar v. Hightower

, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).

The district court’s dismissal of Raines’s complaint as

frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

See Adepegba v. Hammons

, 103 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 1996). Raines

is warned that if he accumulates three “strikes,” he will no longer

be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while

he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. S ee 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

AFFIRMED. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
<PAGE>


                                                              Exhibit 24.2

                            POWER OF ATTORNEY

  The undersigned, Judith A. McHale, hereby authorizes and appoints Thomas E.
Moloney and Richard S. Scipione, or either of them, as such person's attorney-
in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, to sign and file
on such person's behalf individually and in each capacity stated below any and
all amendments (including post-effective amendments) to the registration
statement (Registration No. 333-87271) and any subsequent registration
statement filed by John Hancock Financial Services, Inc. pursuant to Rule
462(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as fully as such person
could do in person, hereby verifying and confirming all that such attorney-in
fact, or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                 Title                                Date
----                                 -----                                ----
<S>                                  <C>                           <C>
/s/ Judith A. McHale                 Director                      November 11, 1999
____________________________________
Judith A. McHale
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1918 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1918

 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to extend the import- and 
export-related provision of that Act to species proposed for listing as 
                threatened or endangered under that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2015

Mr. Menendez (for himself, Mr. Booker, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Cardin, Ms. 
Mikulski, and Mr. Markey) introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to extend the import- and 
export-related provision of that Act to species proposed for listing as 
                threatened or endangered under that Act.

    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 ``Conserving Ecosystems by Ceasing the 
Importation of Large (CECIL) Animal Trophies Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973.

    Section 9(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1538(a)(1)) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
following:
            ``(A) for any such species listed, or proposed to be 
        listed, under section 4, import the species into, or export the 
        species from, the United States;''.
                                 <all>
```
'fOP SECRET ,. e 

USCIB: 29 .16/7 

REF ID:A60611i ..... 24 

lS October 1954 

'POP SEeftft EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE 14.l!MBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: 

References: 

Terms of Reference for U.S.~._ ___ .... fCCMINT 

Negotiations. 

(a) USCIB 29.lS/17 of 16 August 1954·. 

(b) USCIB 29.16/4 of 3 September 1954. 

1. The enclosed report or the Ad Hoc Committee established by 

reference (a) is circulated in connection with the action taken on 

reference (b) by USCIB at its 106th Meeting. 

2. It is requested that the attached vote sheet be executed 

and returned to this office by the close or business, Friday, 

29 October 1954. 

3. THIS DOCUMENT AND ITS ENCLOSURE CONTAIN COMMUNICATIONS 

INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION AND ~HALL BE HANDLED ONLY IN CHANNEIS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR CCMINT. 

Enclosure 

a/s 

USCIB: 29.16/7 

aptain, • • Navy ~~rr:.ive Secretary, USCIB 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-28-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

TOP 8f:Cftt:T
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Dawson Geophysical Company (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, L. Decker Dawson, Chairman of the Board 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 my knowledge:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: May 12, 2005
    
    /s/ L. Decker DawsonL. Decker DawsonChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER I, William G. Pagonis, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of RailAmerica, 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
annual report;  3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual
report;  4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 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 and presented in this annual 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) 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 officer(s) 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
functions):  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: March 15, 2004 /s/ William G. Pagonis
William G. Pagonis
Principal Executive Officer
------!'. ~~- - "' .... ._ ......... ""' .... I 

REF ID:A62926 

Mr. Leo Roeen 

c/o Anderson-11cbola Com.pany 

150 Causeway Street 

Boaton 11'-, Maeeachueetta 

Dear Mr. Ro1en1 

13 April 1955 

In the 1ntereat of both Mr. and Mra. William F. J".riedman 

I take the libm-t7 to write :vou to tell you ot the vonder:tul 

and well deserved award they- received tram the J'olpr Shake ... 

epea.re Library :tor their manuacriptJ a nev•paper clipping o~ 

thi• mmouncement is enclosed. 

Mr. Frioc3man had returned to hie oftic• tor one week, 

after an extended trip to Europe on of'1'1cial 'business, when 

on April 3 he w.a stricken llith a heart attack; diasnos1e 

11 a mild coronaey occlusion. He ia nov 1n the George Washington Univeraity Hospital where he vill :remain tor &pprox1-

mately tour weeks and than confined at hc;me to rest tor the 

same period o-r time. 'l'he heart attack and the public announcement of tbe a.ward. have no connection a• they vere intormed 

about two w•eks prior to that date or w1mnna firat prize. 

I know you are a V9f7 dear triend ot both Mr. and Mr•. 

Friedman and v1ll be &.lighted to hear or their auccees and 

aoo4 fortune with tbe anuacr1pt but distressed to learn ot 

Mr. Friedman'• illness. 

Inola 

a/• 

Very truly youra, 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 06-19-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

. .. ....... _ ... ... I • ~-

j.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, March 05, 2015, 11:00 a.m. to March 05, 2015, 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 24, 2015, 80 FR 9738.                

The meeting will be held on March 12, 2015. The meeting location and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated:  February 25, 2015.

David Clary, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-04408 Filed 3-3-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P