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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 104 

To authorize the Maritime Administrator to use certain appropriated funds 

to purchase duplicate medals authorized under Merchant Mariners of 

World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2020, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Mr. GARAMENDI (for himself and Mr. YOUNG) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the Maritime Administrator to use certain appropriated funds to purchase duplicate medals authorized 

under Merchant Mariners of World War II Congressional 

Gold Medal Act of 2020, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE DUPLICATE 

4 MEDALS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation, 

6 acting through the Administrator, may use funds appro7 priated for the fiscal year in which the date of the enact8 ment of this Act occurs, or funds appropriated for any 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 104 IH

1 prior fiscal year, for the Maritime Administration to pur2 chase duplicate medals authorized under the Merchant 

3 Mariners of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act 

4 of 2020 (Public Law 116–125) and provide such medals 

5 to eligible individuals who engaged in qualified service who 

6 submit an application under subsection (b) and were 

7 United States merchant mariners of World War II. 

8 (b) APPLICATION.—To be eligible to receive a medal 

9 described in subsection (a), an eligible individual who en10 gaged in qualified service shall submit to the Adminis11 trator an application containing such information and as12 surances as the Administrator may require. 

13 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

14 (1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Adminis15 trator’’ means the Maritime Administrator. 

16 (2) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL WHO ENGAGED IN

17 QUALIFIED SERVICE.—The term ‘‘eligible individual 

18 who engaged in qualified service’’ means an indi19 vidual who, between December 7, 1941, and Decem20 ber 31, 1946— 

21 (A) was a member of the United States 

22 merchant marine, including the Army Trans23 port Service and the Navy Transport Service, 

24 serving as a crewmember of a vessel that was— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 104 IH

1 (i) operated by the War Shipping Ad2 ministration, the Office of Defense Trans3 portation, or an agent of such depart4 ments; 

5 (ii) operated in waters other than in6 land waters, the Great Lakes, and other 

7 lakes, bays, or harbors of the United 

8 States; 

9 (iii) under contract or charter to, or 

10 property of, the Government of the United 

11 States; and 

12 (iv) serving in the Armed Forces; and 

13 (B) while so serving, was licensed or other14 wise documented for service as a crewmember 

15 of such a vessel by an officer or employee of the 

16 United States authorized to license or document 

17 the person for such service. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Charles E. CONNERS v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES

CR-16-0117

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017 Reh. denied March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
United States of America,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

V. Case No. 2:18-cr-84(3)

Abulkadir A. Yusuf, Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendant.

ORDER

Abulkadir A. Yusuf ("Defendant") pleaded guilty before Magistrate Judge King to

conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute a substance containing a

detectable amountof codeine-promethazine inviolation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1); obtaining

a controlled substance by fraud in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count

8); and use of another's DBAregistration number in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(2) (Count 7).

Magistrate Judge King thereafter issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending

the Court accept Defendant's guilty plea (decision on acceptance of the plea agreement was

deferred for consideration by the Undersigned upon completion of a presentence investigation

report). R&R, ECF No. 197. The R&R details why Magistrate Judge King believed Defendant's

guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. See generally, id. Further, the R&R notified

the parties of their right to object to the same within fourteen days and of the consequences of

the failure to object. Id. at 3. More than fourteen days have passed, and no objections were

filed. For that reason, as well as the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court ADOPTS the same

and ACCEPTS Defendant's guilty plea.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, R. Gregory Miller, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 (this Amendment) to annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004, of California
Micro Devices Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this
Amendment 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 Amendment; and



3. Based on my knowledge, the
financial statements, and other financial information included in this Amendment, 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
Amendment.



Date: June 30, 2005



|    |  |                                                                   
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/ R. GREGORY MILLER                                             
|    |  | R. Gregory Miller Vice President Finance & Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.2



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 Annual Report of CytRx Corporation (the Company) on Form l0-K/A for the
period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven A. Kriegsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    STEVEN A. KRIEGSMANName:

Steven A. KriegsmanIts:

Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer




A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date: May 6, 2003
National Guard Birthday Message 2009

On the Thirteenth of December each year, we celebrate the

creation of one of America’s most enduring institutions – our National 

Guard. The Guard has a proud history of serving and protecting the 

American people at home and defending our allies abroad. Now, more 

than any time in our history, our National Guard keeps our military, our 

Nation strong. We would not have been able to maintain over eight 

years of sustained combat operations without this incredible service

and the sacrifices of Guard families and employers who also 

contribute. 

During World War II, National Guard units were among the first 

in the fight. America’s Citizen-Soldiers and Citizen-Airmen performed 

valiantly during the Cold War in far away places from Korea to Europe. 

Over 20,000 Guardsmen served on active duty in the Vietnam War, 

and over 75,000 answered the Nation’s call in support of Operation 

Desert Storm.

Today over 70,000 of you are currently supporting expeditionary 

operations in locations around the world while still maintaining 

vigilance and crisis response stateside. Your efforts are making a 

remarkable difference at a critical time in our country’s history. We 

could not do it without you.

On behalf of your fellow service members of the Armed Forces, 

the Joint Chiefs and I thank you and your families and employers for 

373 years of courageous sacrifice and service to our Nation. Because 

of you, the National Guard is Always Ready, and Always There.

 

Sincerely,

M.G. MULLEN

Admiral, U.S. Navy
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 28, 2014

h0324 

# Order

Clerk March 28, 2014

148337

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148337

COA: 315566

Saginaw CC: 02

- 021048

- FC

ROBERT J. JACKSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is D ENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Josue Isai SANTOS-PORTILLO, AKA Josue Issai Santos-Portillo, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72204

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 24, 2017

Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner

OIL, Rosanne Perry, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See.*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*748MEMORANDUM **

Josué Isai Santos-Portillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Santos-Portillo’s motion to reopen for failure to establish exceptional circumstances, where he failed to attend his hearing because he forgot the date of his hearing due to stress and confusion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(h); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1); *Valencia-Fragoso v. INS,*321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2003) (no exceptional circumstances where petitioner forgot the scheduled time of her hearing).

Contrary to Santos-Portillo’s contention, the agency applied the correct legal standard and did not fail to address relevant factors or evidence. *See Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft,*298 F.3d 888, 892 (9th Cir. 2002) (applying a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether exceptional circumstances were present); *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency must consider the issues raised and express its decision “in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). Nor did the BIA err in distinguishing Santos-Portillo’s case from *Singh v. INS,*213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2000), where Santos-Portillo’s only possible relief from removal was discretionary.

Santos-Portillo has not established that the agency violated his due process rights by denying the motion. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SOMJAI MURRELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 01-6558

DARLENE BEST, Undercover Officer;

UNNAMED POLICE OFFICER,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CA-01-209-2)

Submitted: July 31, 2001

Decided: August 21, 2001

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Somjai Murrell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Somjai Murrell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42

U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. The district court construed Murrell’s action as one for habeas corpus relief under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) after finding Murrell’s

action, which alleges he was arrested without probable cause, challenged the fact or duration of his incarceration. On appeal, however,

Murrell argues that the incident that forms the basis of his § 1983

complaint is unconnected to his current incarceration. 

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find the record before us is inadequate to evaluate the propriety of the

district court’s action. Accordingly, we remand Murrell’s claim to the

district court for further proceedings to ascertain if in fact Murrell’s

allegations in this complaint amount to an attack on a conviction for

which he was incarcerated. The record, as supplemented, will then be

returned to this court for further proceedings. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

REMANDED

2 MURRELL v. BEST
Antonio Marquis BETTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3218

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3577-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Illinois (FEMA-3577-EM), dated December 13, 2021, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued December 23, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Illinois is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of December 13, 2021.

                        Menard County for emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct                               ( print page 6620)                            federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.                    

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2022-02239 Filed 2-3-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Swinney vs. The State.

An erroneous instruction, not prejudicial to the party excepting to it, is no ground for reversal.

*Appeal from Scott Circuit Court.*

Hollowell, Attorney General, for the State.

Mr. Justice Compton,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the court below, the appellant, Swinney, was convicted *216and fined two hundred dollars, for an assault and battery upon the person of one Gibson.

The evidence adduced on the trial, is briefly as follows:

Gibson, upon whom the assault was made, was a very small boy, and, in the language of the witnesses who testified in the case, was “ whipped unmercifully,” his back and arms being so severely bruised as to endanger his life. The only reason for the assault, as given by Swinney himself, was that Gibson had been in his water-melon patch.

The court charged the jury in substance, that if they believed from the evidence, that Swinney violently struck or beat Gibson, and the assault was not in necessary self-defence, they should find' Swinney guilty and assess his fine at any sum not exceeding two hundred dollars. The only objection that can be taken to this charge is, that so much of it as relates to self-defence, is abstract, there being no evidence whatever in the record tending to prove that the boy Gibson offered, or attempted to offer any violence to the person, of his unfeeling and malignant assailant. But this error can avail Swinney nothing, as it was in his favor; or, - at all events, was not to his prejudice. *Clark vs. Bomford & Shumard,*20 *Ark.*440; *Ashley vs. May,*5 *Ark.*409.

Nor can it be seriously insisted that the fine was excessive. In view of the relentless ferocity of Swinney, and the severity of the injury inflicted, the jury were doubtless induced to visit him with the highest fine known to the law for the offence charged, and in doing so, they did right.

Let the judgment be affirmed.
Amendment to Certificate of Trust of Zions Capital Trust C



 EXHIBIT 4.8 
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 CERTIFICATE OF TRUST 
 OF 
 ZIONS CAPITAL TRUST C 
 THIS
Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Trust of Zions Capital Trust C (the “Trust”), is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned trustee to amend the Certificate of Trust of the Trust, which was filed on August 2, 2002 (as
heretofore amended, the “Certificate of Trust”), with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801, et seq.)(the “Act”). 
 1. Name. The name of the statutory trust is Zions Capital Trust C. 
 2. Amendment to Certificate of Trust. The Certificate of Trust is hereby amended by amending and restating Section 2 thereof in its entirety as follows: 
 “2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with its principal place of business in the State of Delaware
are: 
 BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware 
 White Clay Center, Route 273 
 Newark, Delaware 19711.” 
 3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective
upon filing. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned trustee of the Trust has executed this Certificate of Amendment in accordance with
Section 3811(a)(2) of the Act. 
  

			
	 BNY MELLON TRUST OF DELAWARE,
 not in its
individual capacity, but solely as trustee

		
	By:	 	/s/ Kristine K. Gullo
		 	Name: Kristine K. Gullo
		 	Title:   Vice President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6153

EUGENE KING,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ORANGEBURG COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; EDWARD 

DICKERSON, Administrative Judge, Individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Orangeburg. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (5:23-cv-01898-TLW)

Submitted: September 5, 2024 Decided: September 19, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugene King, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6153 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Eugene King seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his post-judgment 

motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on October 17, 2023, and the appeal period 

expired on November 16, 2023. King filed the notice of appeal on February 9, 2024.

*

 

Because King failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening 

of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on King’s 

declaration of inmate filing is the earliest date that King could have delivered the notice to 

prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 

U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6153 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Dominic MADISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-131

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Aven COTTON

CR-15-1464

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.