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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6547 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6547

 To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from implementing the Draft 
 Resource Management Plan and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Colorado River Valley Field Office and Grand Junction 
                Field Office Resource Management Plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2023

   Ms. Boebert (for herself, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Ogles, and Mr. Nehls) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from implementing the Draft 
 Resource Management Plan and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Colorado River Valley Field Office and Grand Junction 
                Field Office Resource Management Plans.

    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 ``Colorado Energy Prosperity Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 
              AND DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.

    The Secretary of the Interior may not finalize, implement, 
administer, or enforce the Draft Resource Management Plan or Draft 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement referenced in the Notice 
titled ``Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan 
and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Colorado River 
Valley Field Office and Grand Junction Field Office Resource Management 
Plans, Colorado'' (88 Fed. Reg. 51855; published August 4, 2023), or 
any substantially similar documents.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered September 26, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00538-CV

GWENDOLYN BYARS, Appellant

V.

MANUEL H. ORNELAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-01578-E

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 24, 2018 motion for an extension of time to 

file a jurisdictional letter brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to October 8, 2018.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-1331

_____________________________

MATTHEW LEE ROBINSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal – Original Jurisdiction.

March 15, 2018

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 

9.141(c)(5)(A).

WOLF, LEWIS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Matthew Lee Robinson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Exhibit  99.2     Press Release

PRESS RELEASE
February 22, 2002

For further information contact:

                                 David M. Bradley
                                 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                                 North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                                 825 Central Avenue
                                 Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                                 515-576-7531

              NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. INCREASES DIVIDEND 20%

David M. Bradley, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of North
Central Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") announced today that the Company
declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.18 per share on the Company's
common stock for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2002. This amount is an
increase of 20% compared to the previous dividend rate. The dividend will be
payable to all stockholders of record as of March 15, 2002 and will be paid on
April 8, 2002.

Since 1997, North Central Bancshares annual dividends have increased from $0.25
per share to $0.72 per share, an increase of 188%.

North Central Bancshares, Inc. serves north central and southeastern Iowa at 8
full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada, Ames, Burlington, Mount Pleasant
and Perry, Iowa through its wholly-owned subsidiary, First Federal Savings Bank
of Iowa, headquartered in Fort Dodge, Iowa. The Bank's deposits are insured by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The Company's stock is traded on The
Nasdaq National Market under the symbol "FFFD".

For further information contact:  David M. Bradley, President     515-576-7531
#### John TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16574

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 16, 2017

John Turner, Pro Se

*337Theresa Haar, AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

John Turner, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment following the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, *Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv.,*231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Turner’s motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) because Turner failed to inform the court of his change of address as required by United States District Court District of Nevada Local Rule 2-2, and failed to show excusable neglect. *See id.*at 1223-24 (discussing *Pioneer-Briones*factors to determine whether neglect is excusable).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Prabhijit Singh BHULLAR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-72084

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 2, 2017

Kyle Jordan Howard, Esquire, Kyle J. Howard, Valley Immigration Law Group, Inc., Fresno, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Joanna L. Watson, Sheri Robyn Glaser, Trial Attorneys, Ernesto Horacio *488Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Prabhijit Singh Bhullar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhullar’s motion to reopen where he filed it more than 90 days after the BIA’s final administrative decision, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where he failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); *Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 991-92 (BIA did not abuse its discretion where petitioner failed to introduce material evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130037 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130037 

 COA: 265300 
 Wayne CC: 04-012859

DEONTA DESHAWN BUTLER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2005 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0424 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
     I, Curtis W. Mewbourne, Chief Executive Officer of Mewbourne DevelopmentCorporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 00-A, L.P.(the “Registrant”), certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Mewbourne EnergyPartners, 00-A, L.P.
     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this annual reportis being prepared;
b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to thefiling date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and
c. presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):
a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data andhave identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknessesin internal controls; and
b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls; and
     6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated inthis annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
Date: March 29, 2004.     /s/ Curtis W. Mewbourne   Curtis W. Mewbourne Chief Executive Officer Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of the Registrant
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilfredo Martinez, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 635]

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), rendered April 26, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, burglary in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the *540fourth degree, attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), and criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The showup identification procedure, where the defendant was identified by the complainant, was conducted in close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime and was not impermissibly suggestive *(see People v Duuvon, 11*NY2d 541 [1991]; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023 [1982]; *People v Lopez,*292 AD2d 395, 396-397 [2002]; *People v Dottin,*255 AD2d 521 [1998]; *People v Rodney,*237 AD2d 541 [1997]; *People v Mitchell,*185 AD2d 249, 250 [1992]). Accordingly, the County Court properly permitted testimony regarding the complainant’s showup identification. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.22


                         [LETTERHEAD OF eCOLLEGE.COM]

                                March 12, 2001


Charles P. Schneider
President
10200 A East Girard Avenue
Denver, Colorado  80231


     Re:  Amendment to Employment Agreement
          ---------------------------------


Dear Charlie:

I am writing to confirm that effective October 1, 2000 your salary is $265,000,
and your target bonus, subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors, is
$150,000.  Effective November 30, 2000, your title is President.

This letter is intended to amend your Employment Agreement to reflect your new
salary and/or title.  The purpose of this letter is to express these changes
only; no terms and conditions of your Employment Agreement, other than the terms
that are expressly amended in this letter, are changed by this letter.

If you have any questions regarding this matter,  please do not hesitate to
contact me.  Please acknowledge your understanding and acceptance of this
amendment to your Employment Agreement by signing below and returning this
document to the General Counsel on or before March 16, 2001.

Sincerely,

/s/ Oakleigh Thorne
Oakleigh Thorne
Chief Executive Officer



Acknowledged and Accepted By:


/s/ Charles P. Schneider
Charles P. Schneider
President
#### LEVISON *v.*LEVISON.

,1. Divorce — Property Settlement — Alimony—Child Support— Discretion op Trial Court.

Order of trial court setting out property settlement and alimony and child support to be paid by defendant husband *held,*not so unfair or unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of discretion.

2. Same — Property Settlement — Marital Property.

Exclusion by the trial court of certain assets from the marital property *held,*a proper exercise of discretion when the evidence of ownership was conflicting and it cannot be said that the trial court’s determination was clearly erroneous.

References for Points in Headnotes

[1,2] 24 Am Jur 2d, Divoree and Separation §§ 827, 839, 842, 929, 930, 933.

Appeal from Oakland, Roberts (Farrell E.), J.

Submitted Division 2 May 7, 1968, at Detroit.

(Docket No. 3,595.)

Decided September 23, 1968.

Complaint by Pauline F. Levison against F. Robert Levison for a decree of divorce and property settlement, and an award of alimony and child support. Defendant counterclaimed for divorce. Judgment of divorce and property settlement granted to plaintiff, and alimony and child support awarded. Defendant appeals. Plaintiff cross-appeals.

Affirmed.

*Hartman, Beier, Howlett & McConnell,*for plaintiff.

*Parulc & Miller,*for defendant.

*244Per Ctjriam.

Pauline F. Levison was granted an absolute divorce from F. Robert Levison, who appeals claiming the trial court abused its discretion in the valuation and division of the marital property and in the support and alimony awards. A cross-appeal asserts the court erred in determining title to certain property alleged to be part of the marital assets.

The record contains evidence which adequately supports the trial judge’s valuation of the marital property. His order dividing the property has not been shown to have been so unfair nor does the amount of alimony and child support decreed appear so unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of discretion.

The cross-appeal asserts the court erred in excluding certain assets from the marital property. The evidence of ownership was conflicting and we cannot say the trial court’s determination was clearly erroneous.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

T. G. Kavanagh, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Dalton, JJ., concurred.
EXHIBIT 11
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11

                         WESTWOOD FINANCIAL CORPORATION


              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                                      Six Months Ended
                                                     September 30, 1997
                                                     ------------------


         Net Income  ................................      $357,000
                                                           ========


         Primary and fully diluted

         Average shares outstanding..................       645,268
                                                            =======


         Per share amount............................           .55
                                                                ===



Earnings per share of common stock for the six months ended  September  30, 1997
have been  determined  by  dividing  net income for the six month  period by the
weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding.
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 99.3    Press release


April 22, 1997

 
                              For further information contact:

                              David M. Bradley
                              Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                              North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                              825 Central Avenue
                              Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                              515-576-7531


                   NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. ANNOUNCES

                           STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM


Fort Dodge, Iowa, April 22, 1997 - North Central Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq:
"FFFD") (the "Company"), the holding company for First Federal Savings Bank of
Fort Dodge, announced that it will commence a stock repurchase program beginning
on or about April 28, 1997. The program authorizes the Company to repurchase up
to five percent of its 3,429,455 outstanding shares of common stock during the
next twelve months. The repurchases will be made from time to time, in open
market transactions, at the discretion of management. The Company notified the
Office of Thrift Supervision on April 10, 1997 of the adoption of this stock
repurchase program and the applicable waiting period expired on April 21, 1997.

North Central Bancshares, Inc., with over $203 million in assets, is the holding
company for First Federal Savings Bank of Fort Dodge, a federally chartered
stock savings bank. First Federal is a community-oriented institution serving
north central Iowa through 4 full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada, and
Ames, Iowa. First Federal's deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation.
MEETING LOG

DIRECTORATE FOR ENGINEERING SCIENCES

SUBJECT: ASTM Ballot 12-06 Item #3: Revision of F406-2012A Consumer Safety 

Specification for Non-Full-Size Baby Cribs/Play Yards 

LOCATION: Via Conference Call

DATE: November 28, 2012

ENTRY DATE: November 28, 2012

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Patty Edwards, Greg Rea

COMMISSION ATTENDEES: Patty Edwards, Greg Rea

NON-COMMISSION ATTENDEES: Mo Anooshah, Steve Anzaroot, Dave Campbell, 

Bob Coughlin, Bob Crowley, Gary Gillett, Ron Hoffman, Vaibhav Kulkarni, Jonathan 

Lee, Julia Pritchett, Sam Shamie, Bill Suvak, Ken Walsh, Steve Tasker, Andrew Kutylo, 

Ben Gross

MEETING SUMMARY:

This ballot item deals with the possible misassembly of bassinet/cradle accessories to 

play yards. 

The task group reviewed the persuasive negative from Mr. Anooshah, and discussed 

possible solutions. Mr. Anooshah’s negative is as follows:

I understand the need of having some kind of test / verification when the misassembled 

product by the consumers present safety hazard to children. However, I disagree with 

this requirement since there are playards in the market that do not present any safety 

concern such as fall, suffocation, or strangulation hazard when one of the key structural 

elements such as one of the metal bars is missing. In another word, why do we need to 

modify the product per this requirement if the product is safe when one of the key 

structural elements is not assembled at all?

The discussion centered around the fact that the key structural elements involved in the 

fatal incident were attachment bars – those used to secure and attach the bassinet

accessory to the play yard frame, and not the mattress support bars. Testing results of 

some products were discussed. The results showed that the mattress support bars on 

some products are redundant features, and thus, it was argued that they should not be 

required to be permanently attached. The option to limit the misassembly requirement to 

only those components that attach the bassinet accessory to the play yard was discussed.
CPSC staff expressed a concern is that if ASTM exempts the mattress support bars, that 

the misassembly requirement would not address problems of mattress flatness when a 

support bar is missing in the bassinet accessory. The mattress flatness test is part of the 

ASTM bassinet standard. 

After much discussion, the task group agreed to create a requirement that is specific to 

components that attach bassinet/cradle accessories to the play yard. And that the mattress 

support bar issue should be addressed in the bassinet standard. The solution agreed to by 

the task group was that bassinets with segmented mattress must meet the mattress flatness 

test with and without any removable (not permanently attached) support bars. This 

information will be conveyed to the bassinet sub-committee chairman. 

A sub-task group will develop new language for the play yard standard, and will circulate 

it to the entire task group for comments. It will then be discussed at the January subcommittee meeting. It is expected that after this meeting it will go to ballot.