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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6824 

To require the Attorney General to submit to the Congress a report that 

includes the demographic data of persons determined to be ineligible 

to purchase a firearm based on a background check performed by the 

National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. MASSIE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require the Attorney General to submit to the Congress 

a report that includes the demographic data of persons 

determined to be ineligible to purchase a firearm based 

on a background check performed by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 

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 ‘‘NICS Data Reporting 

5 Act’’. 

2 

•HR 6824 IH

1 SEC. 2. NICS REPORT. 

2 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

3 of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Attorney General 

4 shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Sen5 ate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 

6 Representatives a report that includes, with respect to the 

7 preceding year, the demographic data of persons who were 

8 determined to be ineligible to purchase a firearm based 

9 on a background check performed by the National Instant 

10 Criminal Background Check System, including race, eth11 nicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, disability, average 

12 annual income, and English language proficiency, if avail13 able. 

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Alberto GUZMAN-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41322 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 19, 2017

*373Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Juan Alberto Guzman-Sanchez, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Alberto Guzman-Sanchez 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). Guzman-Sanchez has filed a response, seeking appointment of counsel to assist with his appeal. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Guzman-Sanchez’s response. 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. Guzman-Sanchez’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

*

 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.
# Publicatieblad C 11A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0995
  doi:10.3000/19770995.CA2014.011.dut |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | C 11A |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen | 57e jaargang15 januari 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0995

doi:10.3000/19770995.CA2014.011.dut

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

C 11A

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Mededelingen en bekendmakingen

57e jaargang15 januari 2014

---

| Nummer | Inhoud | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rectificaties |
| 2014/C 011A/01 | Rectificatie van de vacature voor de functie van uitvoerend directeur van het Europees Spoorwegbureau (ESB) in Frankrijk (tijdelijk functionaris — rang AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (PB C 6 A van 10.1.2014) | 1 |

Nummer

Inhoud

Bladzijde

Rectificaties

2014/C 011A/01

Rectificatie van de vacature voor de functie van uitvoerend directeur van het Europees Spoorwegbureau (ESB) in Frankrijk (tijdelijk functionaris — rang AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (PB C 6 A van 10.1.2014)

(PB C 6 A van 10.1.2014)

1

OVERZICHT VAN DE IN DE C A-SERIE VAN HET PUBLICATIEBLAD GEPUBLICEERDE VERGELIJKENDE ONDERZOEKEN

Hierbij vindt u een lijst van C A-publicatiebladen Vergelijkende onderzoeken die in 2014 tot op heden gepubliceerd werden.

Deze publicaties verschenen — tenzij anders vermeld — in alle officiële talen.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |

5

6

11

| NL | |
| --- | --- |

NL

---

Rectificaties

| 15.1.2014 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | CA 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2014

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

CA 11/1

---

Rectificatie van de vacature voor de functie van uitvoerend directeur van het Europees Spoorwegbureau (ESB) in Frankrijk

(tijdelijk functionaris — rang AD 14)

COM/2014/10345

(
  Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie C 6 A van 10 januari 2014
  )

(2014/C 11 A/01)

Bladzijde 4, onder „Sollicitatieprocedure”: de link in de derde alinea komt als volgt te luiden:

„https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/”.

---
EX-34 (c)
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors of Fifth Third Mortgage Company:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Fifth Third Mortgage Company (the "Company") complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of
Federal Regulations (the "CFR") for the Residential Mortgage Loans sold to
Non-Government-Sponsored Entities starting January 1, 2006 Platform (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006, excluding criteria
229.1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(iv), (d)(3)(i)(c), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), and
(d)(4)(xv) of the CFR, which management has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Exhibit A to
management's assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions
defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible
for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is
to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing
criteria during the specified period and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to
selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered
by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing
activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform.
Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from
errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have
affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during
the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006 for the Residential Mortgage Loans sold to
Non-Government-Sponsored Entities starting January 1, 2006 Platform is fairly
stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
March 9, 2007
COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 100th District Court of Carson County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on June 22,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Desiree Nicole Romero v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-15-00036-CR Trial Court Number: 4898

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated June 22, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the 100th District

Court of Carson County, Texas for further proceedings in accordance with this Court’s

opinion entered this day.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on June 22, 2015.

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

FILE COPY
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard MCDONALD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7246

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 23, 2017

Decided: April 20, 2017

Richard McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard McDonald seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on McDonald’s 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McDonald 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 09/ 19 /2014 **FROM:** Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013 - 0602 **SUBJECT:** M ontana PS C Conference Call held on 09/19/2014 **SUMMARY :**  At the request of Travis Kavulla, Commissioner, Montana Public Service Commission (PSC), staff from EPA Headquarters, EPA Region 8, and EPA Region 9 p articipated in a conference call with the Montana PSC and others on EPA’s use of the integrated planning model (IPM) for the Clean Power Plan on 09/19/2014 . The Clean Powe r Plan was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES: EPA Headquarters**  Gabrielle Stevens , Bill Meroney, Brian Fisher, Reid Harvey, M i khail Adamantiades, Jeb Stenhouse, Jeremy Mark **EPA Region 8**  Laura Farris **EPA Region**  **9** Ben Machol **External Stakeholders** Commissioner, Travis Kavulla , Margo S churman and Bob Decker, Montana PSC Peter Ashcroft, Utah Office of Energy Development Keegan Moyer, Western Electricity Coordinating Council Tom Carr and Alaine Ginocchio, Western Interstate Energy Board Karen Griffin , Grace Anderson, and Angela Tanghetti, California Energy Commission Ed Stone bu rg, Arizona Corporation Commission **Questions Discussed** (1) We've heard from RTOs some criticism of the deficiency of IPM as a hub
- and
- spoke model that doesn't accurately represent regions but instead uses NERC regions, which do not represent current market footprints. Could IPM explain how it defines regions and uses th em in its model? (2) A fuller explanation of what it is meant to be a 'hub
- and
- spoke' model (3) A description of how transmission is modeled, or could be modeled/assumed as a supplement to modeling results. (On this point, thinking of the utilization, load
- duration, and power flow studies that certain NERC designated Regional Entities engage in.) (4) A description of the source data for cost analysis. (5) What is the time
- period granularity of the model (some software represents dispatch on an hourly basis, others on an intra
- hourly basis) (6) How does the model incorporate, if at all, stochast icity and the quantification of uncertainty as users are asked to feed in assumptions to populate the model.
#### IN RE: Morris B. FAHNBULLEH, Petitioner.

No. 17-1323

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 2017

Decided: July 11, 2017

Morris B. Fahnbulleh, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Morris B. Fahnbulleh petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on *742his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

h1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143294 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143294 

 COA: 301518 

Isabella CC: 07-000830-FC 

GORDON DEVERE SCHULTZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 15, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
f10k2011a1ex10xxxvi_yida.htm



Exhibit 10.36




 


[English Summary]







Mountain and Forest Land Lease Contract







Lessor/Party A: Bengbu City Lilou Town Zhangxiang Village Committee


Lessee/Party B: Anhui Xingguang Investment Group Ltd.







Lease:


Party A agreed to lease the mountains land of approximately 800 mu to Party B.







Term:


70 years from November 10, 2009 to November 10, 2079.







Rent and Payment:


32,000 RMB each year and payable annually. Such rent shall increase 10% for every ten years.







Restrictions:


Party B may conduct operations within the policies of the government. Party A shall assist Party B to obtain approval from relevant governmental agencies if Party B needs to construct houses (including roads) and other facilities.







Termination:


(1) Party A may terminate this Agreement if Party B cannot make payment of the rent on time and if Party B still not able to make payment within one month of written notice from Party A.


(2) This Agreement shall be terminated automatically and unconditionally in case of the expropriation of government planning and public construction needs of the mountain forest land. Party B shall be entitled to compensation of all its assets and possible benefits from expropriation party. Compensation of the mountain and forest land shall belong to Party A.


(3) Party A cannot reclaim the rental of land stipulated in this Agreement. If Party A terminates the Agreement other than described in this Agreement, Party A shall compensate to Party B all its economic losses resulting from termination of the Agreement.







Renewal:


Party A and B may negotiate renewal of the Agreement within 6 months of the expiration of the Agreement. If there is new lessee, Party B is entitled to the appreciation value of its invested assets, real estates and ground attachments on the mountain and forest lands, from the new lessee.







Breach of Contract:


Defaulting party shall pay liquidated damages of 10,000 RMB to the other party and compensate any economic losses to the other party. Observant party may terminate the Agreement unilaterally.


 




  





1











  











Dispute:


If there is any dispute between the parties, both parties shall resolve the dispute through compromise settlement. If the parties cannot reach the settlement, then either party can resolve the dispute by the court of competent jurisdiction.







Date of the Agreement:


November 10, 2009







2
#### In the Matter of B. H. Inness Brown et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Name of Kellogg, Emery and Inness-Brown, et al., Respondents. John Gerdes et al., as Trustees of Reynolds Investing Company, Inc., Appellants*.*

Submitted May 17,1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 290 N. Y. 468.)
<Page>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.16


                        Citadel Broadcasting Corporation
                           City Center West, Suite 400
                          7201 West Lake Mead Boulevard
                             Las Vegas, Nevada 89128




June 4, 2002

Farid Suleman
Forstmann Little & Co.
767 Fifth Avenue, 44th Floor
New York, New York 10153

Dear Farid:

         In accordance with the letter from Theodore J. Forstmann to
you, dated February 15, 2002, confirming the terms of your employment,
the option grant to you to purchase 4,150,000 shares of Class A common
stock shall be March 4, 2002.

         Please confirm your agreement with the foregoing by signing
this letter in the space provided below and returning a signed copy of
the letter to the undersigned.



                                       Very truly yours,

                                       CITADEL BROADCASTING
                                       CORPORATION

                                         /s/ Sandra J. Horbach
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       By:   Sandra J. Horbach
                                       Its:  Vice President


ACKNOWLEDGED
AND CONFIRMED


/s/ Farid Suleman
-----------------------------
Farid Suleman
#### Alexander HARVIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15416 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 25, 2017)

Alexander Harvin, Pro Se

Brian F. Hansen, Kutak Rock, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Jeffrey N. Williams, Wargo & French, LLP—CA, Los Angeles, CA, David M. Pernini, Wargo & French, LLP, Atlanta, GÁ, Cody Sams Wigington, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.'

PER CURIAM:

On May 29, 2003, Alexander Harvin bought a residence in Conyers, Georgia, with the proceeds of a mortgage loan he obtained from SouthTrust Mortgage Corporation. On October 11, 2013, JP Morgan Chase Bank NA (“Chase”) became the as-signee of the mortgage. On July 3, 2014, Harvin sued Nationwide Title Clearing, Chase, and others in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, claiming that the assignment to Chase was invalid and seeking damages on the theory that Chase “violated the [Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)] by attempting'to foreclose on his home without holding a valid security interest in it.” *Harvin v. Nationwide Title Clearing,*632 Fed.Appx. 599 (11th Cir. 2016). The District Court dismissed his lawsuit, and Harvin appealed.

While the appeal was pending,1 Harvin returned to the District Court on December 29, 2015, and filed this action, seeking to enforce the rescission of the 2003 mortgage loan he had allegedly perfected pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a), and Regulation Z promulgated thereunder, when Chase failed to respond to the notice of rescission he delivered to Chase on February 2,2015.

Chase responded by moving the District Court to dismiss Harvin’s complaint.2 The Court referred the motion to a Magistrate Judge, and she recommended its dismissal. The District Court followed her recommendation and entered judgment for Chase. Harvin appeals, contending that the *988Court erred in considering documents attached to his complaint (which were referenced in the complaint’s allegations), and abused its discretion in staying discovery pending the resolution of Chase’s motion to dismiss and in denying his motion for recusal, which was based in part on the Court’s dismissal of his complaint in *Earvin v. Nationwide Title Clearing.*Harvin’s contentions are patently meritless. The District Court’s judgment is accordingly

AFFIRMED,

1

. We affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of Harvin’s case on January 28, 2016. *Harvin v. Nationwide Title Clearing,*632 Fed.Appx. 599 (11th Cir. 2016).

2

. We refer to Harvin’s amended complaint.
#### GALVESTON, HOUSTON & SAN ANTONIO R. R. COMPANY VS. WARE.

Appeal from Kinney county.

*Certiorari.*— Where several suits between the same parties have proceeded to judgment in the court of a justice of the peace, a writ of *certiorari*is not available to consolidate them into one suit and bring it to the county court for trial *de novo. A foriori*this rule oh*446tains when one or more of the judgments in the justice’s court are for amounts not within the jurisdiction of the county court.

Opinion by

Willson, J.
#### HOME SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC, Appellees

2016-2214

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 14, 2017

*627Craig R. Kaufman, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, Redwood City, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Jerry Chen.

Craig E. Countryman, Fish & Richardson, PC, San Diego, CA, argued for appel-lees. Also represented by Michael J. Mckeon, Washington, DC.

(Lourie, Moore, and O’malley, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 86.
#### Geo. V. Brower, Rec’r, Resp’t, *v.*Jos. D. Baucus *et al.,*Impl’d, App’lts.

*Josiah T. Marean,*for resp’t; *Joseph D. Baucus*and *Myer Nussbaum,*for app’lts.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 39 N. Y. State Rep., 25.