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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 282 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 282

   To designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as 
                              wilderness.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 8, 2021

  Mr. Markey (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Carper, Mr. 
  Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. 
   Shaheen, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Warren, Mr. 
Menendez, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Peters, Mr. Merkley, Mr. 
Casey, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Smith, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Cardin, Mr. 
 Sanders, Ms. Baldwin, and Ms. Hirono) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as 
                              wilderness.

    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 ``Arctic Refuge Protection Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF PORTION OF ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AS 
              WILDERNESS.

    Section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 
of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(p) Designation of Certain Land as Wilderness.--Notwithstanding 
any other provision of this Act, a portion of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge in Alaska comprising approximately 1,559,538 acres, as 
generally depicted on the map entitled `Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, Coastal Plain Proposed Wilderness', dated October 20, 2015, 
labeled with Map ID 03-0172, and available for inspection in the 
offices of the Secretary, is designated as a component of the National 
Wilderness Preservation System under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 
et seq.).''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6748

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL F. HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:12-cr-00170-HEH-RCY-1; 3:15-cv-00325-HEH)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael F. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica D. Aber, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Michael Ronald Gill, Gurney Wingate 

Grant, II, Laura Colombell Marshall, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael F. Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny Harris’ motion for 

resettlement, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Siver *against*North.

The plaintiff "deSd defendant ins pipi the 20days, by adding a new count,oranew only be d®ne Court.76 °f the

1 THE declaration in this cause contained a single count, t0 which the defendant pleaded the general issue, and a spceial plea, and gave notice of a rule that the plaintiff reply, &c. Within twenty days thereafter, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant a declaration which he had amended, , iir> _ by adding a second count, with notice to plead, &c. which amendment had been made without any application to the Court. The defendant’s attorney, without regarding the second declaration, entered the default of the plaintiff for not replying to the plea to the first declaration.

*E. Williams,*for the plaintiff, moved tq set aside the default.

*Starkweather,*contra.

*Per Curiam.*

The plaintiff cannot.amend his declaration, as of course, by adding a new count 5 nor can the defendant amend his plea, of course, by adding a new plea. It can only be done by leave of the Court, on special application for that purpose. On this ground, the motiou ought to be denied; but as there appears to have been a mistake on the part'of the plaintiff’s attorney, as to the practice, we grant the rule, on payment of costs.
# C_2016248EN.01000101.xml

| 8.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 248/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 248/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8010 — Irish Life/Aviva Health/GloHealth)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 248/01)

On 8 June 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8010. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8010. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
**Exhibit 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS**          Ryder Scott Company, L.P. hereby consents to the use of its name and the information fromits reports regarding estimated quantities of proved reserves, the future net revenues from thosereserves and their present value for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 in MarinerEnergy, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, and to theincorporation by reference thereof into Mariner Energy, Inc.’s previously filed RegistrationStatements (Nos. 333-132152 and 333-132800) on Form S-8 and Registration Statement (No. 333-141742)on Form S-3./s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P.**RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.**Houston, Texas
# C_2015278EN.01000301.xml

| 22.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7690 — CVC/Douglas Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 278/02)

On 3 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7690. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7690. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2016273EN.01000801.xml

| 27.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 July 2016

(2016/C 273/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0997 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 114,67 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4393 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83710 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5124 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0870 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4370 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,16 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3629 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4657 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3508 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4599 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4553 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5301 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5561 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4925 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 249,22 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,8672 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3357 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4855 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 488,80 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4693 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,855 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,8920 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,494 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6080 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,6734 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,0420 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0997

JPY

Japanese yen

114,67

DKK

Danish krone

7,4393

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83710

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5124

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0870

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4370

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,16

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3629

RON

Romanian leu

4,4657

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3508

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4599

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4553

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5301

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5561

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4925

KRW

South Korean won

1 249,22

ZAR

South African rand

15,8672

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3357

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4855

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 488,80

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4693

PHP

Philippine peso

51,855

RUB

Russian rouble

72,8920

THB

Thai baht

38,494

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6080

MXN

Mexican peso

20,6734

INR

Indian rupee

74,0420

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2015200EN.01000101.xml

| 17.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 June 2015

(2015/C 200/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1215 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,42 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4573 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71820 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1944 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0465 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,7230 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,254 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,88 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1448 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4853 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0707 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4482 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3843 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6949 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6058 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5098 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 256,05 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,9607 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9651 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5760 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 965,30 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2107 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,707 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 60,8890 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,789 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5150 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,3283 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,1229 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1215

JPY

Japanese yen

138,42

DKK

Danish krone

7,4573

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71820

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1944

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0465

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,7230

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,254

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,88

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1448

RON

Romanian leu

4,4853

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0707

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4482

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3843

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6949

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6058

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5098

KRW

South Korean won

1 256,05

ZAR

South African rand

13,9607

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9651

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5760

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 965,30

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2107

PHP

Philippine peso

50,707

RUB

Russian rouble

60,8890

THB

Thai baht

37,789

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5150

MXN

Mexican peso

17,3283

INR

Indian rupee

72,1229

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

GARY COSTNER, 

vs. 

WABA8992 TRUST, 

Appellant, 

Respondent. 

No. 84202 

FILED 

MAR 1 5 2022 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

BY 

CLERK 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying 

motions in a matter arising in justice court. Eighth Judicial District Court, 

Clark County; Tara D. Clark Newberry, Judge. 

Review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to 

NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. The district courts have final 

appellate jurisdiction over cases arising in the justice courts. Nev, Const. 

art. 6, § 6; see also Waugh v. Casazza, 85 Nev. 520, 521, 458 P.2d 359, 360 

(1969). Accordingly, this court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over this 

appeal, and therefore 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 

Silver 

Cadish Pickering 

PiekA 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(I )) I 947A 

07- ago20q 
cc: Hon. Tara D. Clark Newberry, District Judge 

Gary Costner 

WABA8992 Trust 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

oç 

NEVADA 

10) 1V47A
#### Kneifle vs. The State.

Where a defendant in a criminal action obtains a change of venue, and is tried and convicted in the court to which the action is removed, a writ of error cannot properly issue to the court in which the action was commenced, to bring up for review the proceedings had in that court previous to the change of venue.

*369ERROR to the Circuit Court for *La Crosse*County.

*Martin*Kneifle,

who was indicted with others, in the cuit court for La Crosse county, for murder, applied for a change of venue, upon an affidavit that the inhabitants of that county were prejudiced against him, so that he could not have a fair and impartial trial therein. The application was denied. The next clay he applied for a change of venue, on the ground that the judge of the circuit court was prejudiced against him, and would not give him a fair and impartial trial. This application was granted, and the venue was changed to the county of Juneau, where *Kneifle*was tried and convicted.

*K Fox Cook,*for plaintiff in error.

March 12.

*By the*Court,

Cole, J.

The writ of error in this case was issued to the circuit court of La Crosse county, to bring up for review an alleged error of that court in refusing to grant a change of venue upon an application made therefor. But there is no final judgment in that court, and it is therefore manifest that the writ of error was improvidently issued. On another application the venue was changed to Juneau county, where the plaintiff in error was tried, convicted and sentenced.

The writ of error in this case issued to the circuit court of La Crosse county, must be dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

PHILIP M. NICOLO

v.

CRYSTAL JONES AND OCCUPANTS

PETITION OF: ROBERT LEE LOVE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 200 EM 2016

Emergency

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of November 2016, Emergency Motion for Stay of 

Eviction is DENIED.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

MARSHALL S. VAUGHAN,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-2426

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 9, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Citrus County,

Richard A. Howard, Judge.

Marshall S. Vaughan, Raiford, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Marshall S. Vaughan challenges the order summarily denying his Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. He argues that the trial court 

erred in failing to address one of his claims. We agree and reverse.

Vaughan pled no contest to the felony battery of Cristina Hicks. In his rule 3.850 

motion, Vaughan alleged newly discovered evidence, including, among others, an 
2

affidavit by Cristina Hicks, in which she stated that she fabricated all of the allegations 

against Vaughan and he “never put his hands on” her. The trial court denied Vaughan’s 

motion without addressing Hicks’s affidavit. Instead, the trial court’s order only addressed 

the other alleged newly discovered documents and correctly denied the motion as to 

those items. However, the trial court’s failure to address whether Hicks’s affidavit 

warrants an evidentiary hearing requires reversal. See, e.g., Purse v. State, 185 So. 3d 

627, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Hatcher v. State, 114 So. 3d 1019, 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 

2012); Bridges v. State, 81 So. 3d 616, 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Therefore, we reverse 

and remand for consideration of this claim.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7446

DAVID L. GUEST, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:09-cv-00274-GBL-JFA) 

Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 18, 2009 

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David L. Guest, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

David L. Guest seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Guest 

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED