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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 662 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2023 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

AN ACT 

To amend the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations 

Act, 2023 to improve disaster relief funding for agricultural producers, 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, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 662 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Block Grant Assistance 

3 Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DISASTER RELIEF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIA5 TIONS ACT, 2023 AMENDMENT. 

6 Title I of the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appro7 priations Act, 2023 (division N of Public Law 117–328), 

8 is amended, in the matter under the heading ‘‘OFFICE OF

9 THE SECRETARY’’ under the heading ‘‘PROCESSING, RE10 SEARCH AND MARKETING’’ under the heading ‘‘AGRI11 CULTURAL PROGRAMS’’ under the heading ‘‘DE12 PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE’’, by inserting ‘‘: Pro13 vided further, That the Secretary of Agriculture may pro14 vide assistance for losses described under this heading in 

15 this Act in the form of block grants to eligible States and 

16 territories’’ before the period at the end. 

17 SEC. 3. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION. 

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—This Act and the amendments 

19 made by this Act are designated as an emergency require20 ment pursuant to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As21 You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)). 

22 (b) DESIGNATION IN SENATE.—In the Senate, this 

23 Act and the amendment made by this section are des24 ignated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 662 RFS

1 4001(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 14 (117th Congress), the con2 current resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2022. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 12, 2023. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6707 

To repeal the requirements of the Foreign Dredge Act of 1906 with respect 

to dredging and dredged material. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2023 

Mr. MOYLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To repeal the requirements of the Foreign Dredge Act of 

1906 with respect to dredging and dredged material. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Port Modernization 

5 and Supply Chain Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DREDGING; DREDGED MATERIAL. 

7 (a) REPEAL.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 55109 of title 46, 

9 United States Code, is repealed. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6707 IH

1 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The analysis 

2 for chapter 551 of title 46, United States Code, is 

3 amended by striking the item relating to section 

4 55109. 

5 (b) EXCLUDING DREDGED MATERIAL FROM TRANS6 PORTATION REQUIREMENTS.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 55110 of title 46, 

8 United States Code, is amended— 

9 (A) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘OR

10 DREDGED MATERIAL’’; and 

11 (B) by striking ‘‘or dredged material’’. 

12 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The analysis 

13 for chapter 551 of title 46, United States Code, is 

14 amended by striking the item relating to section 

15 55110 and inserting the following: 

‘‘Sec. 55110. Transportation of valueless material.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 4, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00867-CV 

TYLER DURDEN, Appellant 

V. 

WATERTON ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-07819 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Schenck, and Justice Osborne 

Opinion by Justice Schenck 

By unopposed motion filed April 18, 2022, appellant asserts all issues and 

controversies in this matter have been resolved and asks the appeal be dismissed. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.

210867F.P05 

 

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TYLER DURDEN, Appellant 

No. 05-21-00867-CV V. 

WATERTON ASSOCIATES, LLC, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-07819. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Schenck, Chief Justice Burns and 

Justice Osborne participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered May 4, 2022.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Roberto Ramirez CASTILLO, also known as Luis Roberto Ramirez, also known as Luis Roberto Ramirez-Castillo, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20737 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 5, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

*283Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Luis Roberto Ramirez Castillo raises an argument that is foreclosed by *United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar,*768 F.3d 437, 437-38 (5th Cir. 2014). In *Rodriguez-Salazar,*768 F.3d at 437-38, we rejected the argument that the Texas offense of theft is broader than the generic, contemporary definition of theft because the Texas offense, which includes theft by deception, may be committed by taking property with the owner’s consent. Accordingly, the' motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6546 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6546

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to allow certain activities 
 to be carried out with regard to certain fish held in captivity or a 
                        controlled environment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2023

  Mr. Bentz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to allow certain activities 
 to be carried out with regard to certain fish held in captivity or a 
                        controlled environment.

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

SECTION 1. FISH HELD IN CAPTIVITY OR CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.

    Section 9(b) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1538(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(3) Fish Held in Captivity or Controlled Environment.--
            ``(A) Exception.--The provisions of subsection (a)(1) and 
        section 7(a)(2) do not apply to--
                    ``(i) a fish legally held in captivity or in a 
                controlled environment in a manner that maintains 
                physical separation of such fish from any wild 
                population of the same species on the date of the 
                enactment of this paragraph; or
                    ``(ii) progeny of a fish described in clause (i) 
                legally held in the manner described in clause (i),
        until such time as any such fish or progeny is intentionally 
        released from such captivity or controlled environment to live 
        in the wild.
            ``(B) Requirement.--
                    ``(i) In general.--A person that holds a fish or 
                progeny described in subparagraph (A) shall be able to 
                demonstrate to the Secretary that such fish or progeny 
                qualifies as a fish or progeny described in 
                subparagraph (A).
                    ``(ii) Fulfillment of requirement.--A person that 
                holds a fish or progeny described in subparagraph (A) 
                may fulfill the demonstration requirement described in 
                clause (i) through compliance with the applicable 
                provisions of the Convention.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 35.1

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC

                RASC SERIES 2006-KS9 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of October 27, 2006 (as amended  from time to time,  the  "Agreement"),
among  Residential  Asset  Securities  Corporation,  as  depositor,  Residential
Funding Company, LLC, as master servicer, and U.S. Bank National Association, as
trustee,  does hereby  certify  that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material  respects  throughout
such  period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:    /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
       Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
       Title: Managing Director
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50278

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 18, 2017

Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Melanie K. Pierson, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Richard Dale Rome, Attorney, Law Offices of Richard D. Rome, Van Nuys, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*599MEMORANDUM **

José Luis Castillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Castillo contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The high-end sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Castillo’s multiple violations of supervised release. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Moreover, contrary to Castillo’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered his mitigating arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). To the extent that Castillo claims that the district court improperly considered the entire petition to revoke, rather than solely the admitted allegation, he cannot establish plain error. *See United States v. Dallman,*533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008). His counsel stipulated that the court could consider the entire petition.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 15.1

Consent of Maples and Calder



|           |  |                               
|---------- |  | ------------------------------
|Our ref    |  | JPC\620456\5144611v1          
|Direct tel |  | +852 3690 7432                
|E-mail     |  | jenny.chen@maplesandcalder.com

Home Inns & Hotels Management Inc.

No. 124 Caobao Road

Xuhui District

Shanghai 200235

Peoples Republic of China

24 April 2012

Dear Sir

Re: Home Inns & Hotels Management Inc.

We have acted as legal advisors as to the laws of the Cayman Islands to Home Inns & Hotels Management Inc., an exempted limited liability company incorporated in the Cayman Islands (the
Company), in connection with the filing by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission of an annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2011.

We hereby consent to the reference of our name under the heading Item 16G Corporate Governance in the Form 20-F.

Yours faithfully

/s/ Maples and Calder
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arnulfo DAVILA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10720 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 6, 2017

Arnulfo Davila, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Arnulfo Davila, federal prisoner # 32490-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. He contends that the district court erred in failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before denying his motion and in failing to consider the applicable guidelines range.

The district court sentenced Davila to 300 months of imprisonment based on his binding agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). Davila’s plea agreement did not call for him to be *235sentenced within- a particular guidelines range, nor did it indicate that the basis for the specified term was a guidelines range applicable to his offense. *See Freeman v. United States,*564 U.S. 522, 534-40, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); *United States v. Benitez,*822 F.3d 807, 809-12. (5th Cir. 2016). Additionally, the plea agreement did not explicitly employ a particular guidelines range to establish the term of imprisonment. *See Benitez,*822 F.3d at 811. Thus, Davila was not eligible for a reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2); *see Benitez,*822 F.3d at 811-12. The district court’s denial of a sentence reduction is, therefore, AFFIRMED. *See Benitez,*822 F.3d at 809-12; *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
`EXHIBIT 32.2

                           NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of National Auto Credit,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the
Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), do hereby represent, warrant and certify pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



/s/ Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
--------------------------------------------
Name: Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
Title: Chief Financial Officer
(principal accounting and financial officer)
Date:  June 10, 2005




























A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to National Auto Credit, Inc. and
will be retained by National Auto Credit, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       40`
#### Prodigios SANDOVAL-PANIAGUA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71066

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 30, 2017

Cornell Eugene Kirby, Law Office of Cornell Kirby, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner

Andrea Gevas, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of *483Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Prodigios Sandoval-Paniagua, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“U”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. *Sembiring v. Gonzales,*499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Sandoval-Paniagua’s motion to reopen based on lack of notice, where the record establishes that she received the notice to appear (“NTA”), and the notice of hearing was subsequently mailed to the last address on record. *See*8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a)(l)-(2), 1229a(b)(5); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(d). Any irregularities in the service of the NTA were resolved by Sandoval-Paniagua’s concession that she actually received the NTA that was taped to her door. *Cf. Khan v. Ashcroft,*374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir. 2004) (actual notice is sufficient to meet due process requirements). There is no statutory or regulatory requirement that the contents of the NTA be explained to a petitioner, *see Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft,*362 F.3d 1150, 1155 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Current law does not require that the Notice to Appear ... be in any language other than English.”), and Sandoval-Paniagua cites no authority to support her contention that an incomplete or improperly executed certificate of service is sufficient to warrant reopening based on lack of notice.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Sandoval-Paniagua’s unexhausted contentions regarding the IJ’s alleged failure to address the sufficiency of the NTA, and purported irregularities as to the contents and mailing of the NTA. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Veronica PRENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11584 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 25, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Veronica Prendez, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Veronica Prendez has moved for leave to withdraw and has-filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Prendez was not timely in filing a response, and her motion to file an out-of-time response was denied. The motion raised no issues ripe for consideration on direct appeal. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Also, her request for the appointment of new counsel was untimely. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED; counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein; and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5TH Cir. 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 5TH Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

**SECTION1350 CERTIFICATION**

**In connection with this quarterly report of MLTrend-Following Futures Fund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (this “Report I, Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officerof Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the general partner of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 14,2007
| By                                           | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|--------|
| Barbra E. Kocsis                             |                 |
| Chief Financial Officer                      |                 |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |                 |

** **

----
#### BENADA ALUMINUM PRODUCTS COMPANY, Appellant, v. The HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 23734.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 18, 1966.

*1002Howard R. Hirsch, Miami, Fla., for appellant.

Henry Burnett, Miami, Fla., for appellee.

Before BROWN, BELL and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The complaint presented four separate and identified claims, I through IV inclusive, against the Defendant Insurance Company. On trial by the Court alone, the Court found the Insurer not liable under claims I, III, and IV, but liable under claim II with the issue of damages severed, F.R.Civ.P. 42(b). Plaintiff appeals with respect to the adverse decision regarding liability on claims I, III, and IV. On motion to dismiss the appeal by the Insurer, we must grant it since there has been no determination in compliance with F.R.Civ.P. 54(b).

This means that the District Court’s decision on claims I, III, and IV is subject to change by it until the final judgment disposing of all claims and all counts is entered. This is without prejudice to the Appellant seeking reconsideration by the District Court for possible certification by the District Court under F.R.Civ.P. 54(b) or for certification of the question as an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b).

Appeal dismissed.