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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6812 

To authorize the Pines Foundation to establish the Fire Island AIDS 

Memorial, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Pines Foundation to establish the Fire 

Island AIDS Memorial, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fire Island AIDS Me5 morial Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSES. 

7 The purposes of the Act are— 

8 (1) to honor and remember the many residents 

9 of Fire Island Pines and Cherry Grove, New York, 

10 who suffered and died from the AIDS epidemic; and 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6812 IH

1 (2) to educate future generations about the 

2 AIDS epidemic and the impact of the AIDS epi3 demic on the Fire Island communities in the State 

4 of New York. 

5 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

6 In this Act: 

7 (1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means 

8 the Director of the National Park Service. 

9 (2) FOUNDATION.—The term ‘‘Foundation’’ 

10 means the Pines Foundation. 

11 (3) MEMORIAL.—The term ‘‘Memorial’’ means 

12 the Fire Island AIDS Memorial authorized to be es13 tablished under section 4(a). 

14 SEC. 4. FIRE ISLAND AIDS MEMORIAL. 

15 (a) AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL.— 

16 The Foundation may establish and maintain a memorial 

17 at Fire Island National Seashore to honor the residents 

18 of Fire Island who died of AIDS, to be known as the ‘‘Fire 

19 Island AIDS Memorial’’. 

20 (b) USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS PROHIBITED.— 

21 (1) IN GENERAL.—Federal funds may not be 

22 used to design, procure, prepare, install, or maintain 

23 the Memorial. 

24 (2) NON-FEDERAL FUNDS.—The Director may 

25 accept and expend contributions of non-Federal 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6812 IH

1 funds and resources for the purposes described in 

2 paragraph (1). 

3 (c) LOCATION OF MEMORIAL.—The Director may 

4 allow the Memorial to be established in the area of the 

5 Fire Island National Seashore located along the walkway 

6 between the Fire Island Pines and Cherry Grove and adja7 cent to the Carrington House. 

8 (d) DESIGN OF MEMORIAL.—The final design of the 

9 Memorial shall be subject to the approval of the Director. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of the Will of Rudolph R. Noll, Deceased. Gerda Noll et al., Petitioners-Appellants. Otto Ruprecht et al., Individually and as Executors and Trustees under the Will of Rudolph R. Noll, Deceased, et al., Respondents. National Surety Corporation et al., Respondents. (2 Proceedings.) In the Matter of the Estate of Rudolph R. Noll, Deceased. Eleanore G. Noll, an Infant, by Gerda Noll, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Petitioners-Appellants. Otto Ruprecht et al., Individually and as Executors and Trustees under the Will of Rudolph R. Noll, Deceased, Respondents. Edward A. Pfeffer et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 20, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

Separate motions by appellants for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 290 N. Y. 909.)
**EXHIBIT 23.1** **Consent    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     The Board of Directors    Ocean Power Technologies, Inc.:     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration    statement on    Form S-8(No. 333-142547)    of Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. of our report dated    July 27, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance    sheets of Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of    April 30, 2006 and 2007, and the related consolidated    statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and    comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the    three-year period ended April 30, 2007, which report    appears in the April 30, 2007 annual report on    Form 10-K    of Ocean Power Technologies, Inc.     Our report refers to the adoption of the fair value method of    accounting for stock-based compensation as required by Statement    of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),    *Share-Based Payment*, effective May 1, 2006.     /s/  KPMG LLP     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania    July 27, 2007
#### Levantia S. Carpenter, Respondent *v.*Zara H. Blake Appellant.

In an action against a surgeon for malpractice, the question as to whether or not he is skillful in his profession is one of the material issues. If he has not competent skill, he is censurable for holding himself out as possessing it, and is strictly accountable for the consequences of his acts; and having adopted a process which was not successful, to the exclusion of one which might, and probably would have proved so, he is not entitled to the benefits which would inure to the skillful surgeon from an. error of judgment, or mistake in the appliances and means at command of the expert.

Accordingly, *held*(Church, Oh. J., Psckham and Grover, JJ., dissenting), that a charge to the jury that it was immaterial whether the defendant was or was not reputed to be, or was or was not a skillful surgeon, was error.

(Argued June 14, 1872;

decided December 24, 1872.)

*697Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth department, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.

The action was brought against defendant, as a surgeon, for malpractice, in treating a dislocated elbow joint. Evidence was given upon the part of defendant tending to show he was reputed to be and was a skillful surgeon.

The court charged in substance that it was entirely immaterial to the inquiry whether defendant, at the time he undertook the reduction of the dislocation, was or was not reputed to be, or was or was not a skillful surgeon. *Held,*error (Church, Ch. J., Peckham and Grover, JJ., dissenting); various other questions were discussed in the prevailing opinion, but were not agreed to by a majority of the court.

*Henry R. Selden*for the appellant.

*8. JD. Faulkner*for the respondent.

Allen, J.,

reads opinion for reversal and new trial.

Eolger, Rapadlo and Andrews, JJ., concur upon the first ground discussed.

Peckham, J., reads opinion for affirmance. Church, Ch. J., and Grover, J., concur.

Judgment reversed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis ESPINOSA-NAVA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11362 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 17, 2017

*791James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Luis Espinosa-Nava, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Espinosa-Nava 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). Espinosa-Nava has not filed a response. 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.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

87 FR 11493, March 1, 2022.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:

Thursday March 3, 2022 at 2 p.m.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING:

The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 2 p.m., has been cancelled.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Dated: March 2, 2022.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-04823 Filed 3-3-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### THE PEOPLE OF AMERICAN SAMOA, Plaintiffs v. WILLIE HUCH, Defendant

No. 8-1917

High Court of American Samoa Criminal Jurisdiction, Trial Division

Date unknown

DECISION

Guilty as charged in the indictment.

Sentence: To be confined at hard labor, for the duration of the present war with the Imperial German Government.

Recommendation as to Clemency.

The evidence shows that there has been, and probably now exists, considerable feeling between the Robert Reid and Huch families. In view of this, the possibility is recognized of the evidence as to Huch’s utterances being unconsciously somewhat over-emphasized or colored by such personal feeling. The evidence also shows that Huch is a half-caste, his father being German and his mother Samoan, and that his reputation has been generally good. For these reasons, considering his status and limited outlook, it is thought not unlikely that Huch was not fully cognizant of the serious nature of his threats, and that, speaking, as he did, in his own home circle, possibly he thoughtlessly uttered them in unpremeditated heat. The Court, therefore, recommends Huch to such clemency from the Executive as appears compatible with the safety of the Government’s interest.
Exhibit 10.14Base Salaries. The Board of Directors of the Company approved the Compensation Committee’srecommended base salaries for the executive officers listed below (the “Named Executive Officers”)in the amounts indicated, effective January 31, 2007, except for Mr. Ricardo Hernandez, who resignedto his position as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer on June 13, 2006.           Base Salary Last SalaryName Amount (1) Increase Date Frank C. Stipes, Esq. $297,500  November 19, 2001Pedro R Dominguez  177,000  July 11, 2005Jose M. Biaggi, Esq.  382,500  July 11, 2005Ricardo Hernandez, CPA  114,110  July 11, 2005William Vidal, Esq.  233,750  July 11, 2005Norberto Rivera, CPA  225,000  January 22, 2007Base salaries for each Named Executive Officer are reviewed by the Compensation Committeefollowing the 18-month anniversary of such Named Executive Officer start date with the Company,with the exception of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Frank C. Stipes, Esq., whosecompensation is reviewed annually.Annual Incentive Awards. The Board of Directors of the Company approved the CompensationCommittee’s recommended annual incentive awards for 2006, payable in cash, to the Named ExecutiveOfficers as follows:       Annual Incentive            Name Award  Frank C. Stipes, Esq. $24,792 Pedro R Dominguez  614,750 Jose M. Biaggi, Esq.  519,375 Ricardo Hernandez, CPA  300 William Vidal, Esq.  269,479 Norberto Rivera, CPA  163,813 Annual incentive awards include a Christmas bonus that is granted under Puerto Ricolegislation. The Company has normally granted one month of salary as a Christmas bonus.The Company will provide additional information regarding the compensation of the Named ExecutiveOfficers in its Proxy Statement for the 2007 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. (1) Does not include perquisites and other personal benefits, including an allowance for businessand entertainment expenses, which, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000. For information about suchperquisites and allowances, see Executive Compensation section on the Company’s Definitive ProxyStatement for its 2007 annual meeting of shareholders.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo ARCE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7704

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 5, 2017

Decided: April 19, 2017

Ricardo Arce, Appellant Pro Se.

Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ricardo Arce appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(d)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Arce,*No. 5:08-cr-00111-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 23, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are *242adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50044 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. P AT RI CIA S AMANI EG O D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 07- C R - 119- 5 B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H A M , D E N N IS , a n d P R A D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * T h e att orneyapp oi n t ed to represent P a t ri ci a S am an i ego ha s m oved f or l e av e t o w i t hdr aw a nd has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . Ca lif o rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 7 38 ( 19 67 ) . Sam ani e go ha s no tf i l e d ar e s po ns e . Ouri nde pe nde nt r e v ie w o f c o u n s e l’ s b r ie f a n d th e re c o r d d is c lo s e s n o n o n fr iv o lo u s i ssu e for a p p e a l. A c c o r d in g ly , c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w is G R A N T E D , co u n s e l is e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e rr e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e AP P EA L I S DI S M I S S ED . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brenda Vianet MARTINEZ-MONTES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40102 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 25, 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, John Moreno Parras, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Brenda Vianet Martinez-Montes appeals her guilty plea to one count of importing five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. She asserts that the factual basis for her guilty plea was inadequate because the Government failed to meet its obligation to prove that she had knowledge of the particular type and quantity of controlled substance involved in her offense.

As Martinez-Montes concedes, her argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Betancourt,*586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009). There we held that *Flores-Figueroa v. United States,*556 U.S. 646, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009), did not overturn *United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez,*319 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 2003), and that the Government is not required to prove knowledge of the drug type and quantity as an element of a drug offense. 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.
From: Clay Houchin <chouchin@techag.com>

To: <dpr12001@cdpr.ca.gov>

Date: 5/18/2012 3:00 PM

Subject: Proposed Non-Fumigant VOC Regulations

Linda Irokawa-Otani

05/18/12

Regulation Coordinator

Department of Pesticide Regulation

1001 I Street, P.O. Box 4015

Sacramento, CA 95812-4015

RE: Proposed Non-Fumigant VOC Regulations

Dear Ms Irokawa-Otani:

My name is Clayton Houchin and I am the General Manager for the

Buttonwillow Warehouse Company in Buttonwillow, California. We are a fourth

generation family owned crop protection and fertilizer retailer. In addition

to the retail crop protection business, the family farms over 10,000 acres

in Kern County. The reason for this letter, is that I find two main

problems with your proposed VOC regulations for Non-Fumigant products.

The first problem I see with the regulations is that other low VOC

formulations - particularly for oxyfluorfen and chlorpyrifos - are not

adequate alternatives. My company has over 20 years of experience working

with oxyfluorfen (brand name Goal) and chlorpyrifos (brand name Lorsban 4E).

In the case of the low VOC oxyfluorfen, it does not compare with the

regulator formulation1s ability to burn-down hard to control weeds. In

order for the low VOC oxyfluorfen to get similar performance, a grower must

add expensive tank mix partners like - Rely (inconsistent supply) or Treevix

(requires expensive adjuvant/water conditioner package). These tank mixes

will add between $18 to $40/acre to the cost of the spray. Other alternative

like glyphosate suffer from herbicide resistance and paraquat is a

restricted use pesticide exposing workers to unnecessary danger.

In terms of chlorpyrifos, I have worked with the low VOC formulation for the

last 3 years and the performance is inferior to the regular 4EC

formulations. The result is that the grower must use higher rates of the low

VOC formulation resulting in additional cost per acre as well as most actual

pesticide being applied in the state.

Finally, I feel that the administrative burden that these regulations push

upon our business and our people will add costs to our business. Examples of

burden : 1.) providing written information on the VOC regulations 2.)

tracking the intended use period 3.) providing written recommendations and

4.) maintaining records for two years. We will in turn be forced to pass

these costs on to our grower customers.

In summary, the regulators will unnecessarily increase the already high

production costs for California farmers. We need Goal 2XL in our summer post

emergent weed control programs and we need Lorsban 4E or similar EC

formulations for effective in-season control of aphid and plant bug. The

elimination of these formulations will result in significant cost increases

and decreased pest control. This decreased control could even result in
additional trips across the field with a tractor and sprayer and increased

pesticide use in our state.

Please reconsider your proposed VOC regulations.

Sincerely,

Clayton Houchin,

General Manager, Buttonwillow Warehouse Company

661-764-5234
**Exhibit 18**

June 19, 2007 

Toys “R” Us, Inc. 

OneGeoffrey Way 

Wayne, New Jersey 07470 

Dear Sirs/Madams:

At your request, we have read the description included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended May 5, 2007, of the facts relating to the change from valuing inventory at the lower of FIFO (first-in, first-out) cost or market value as determined by the retail inventory method to valuing inventory at the lower of cost or market using aweighted average cost method for foreign subsidiaries other than Toys “R” Us Japan, which already utilizes the weighted average cost method. We believe, on the basis of the facts so set forth and other information furnished to us byappropriate officials of the Company, that the accounting change described in your Form 10-Q is to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the circumstances. 

We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of Toys “R” Us, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period subsequent to February 3, 2007. Therefore, we are unable toexpress, and we do not express, an opinion on the facts set forth in the above-mentioned Form 10-Q, on the related information furnished to us by officials of the Company, or on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of Toys“R” Us, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period subsequent to February 3, 2007. 

Yours truly, 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

New York, New York
#### Jacob Stiner et al., Appellants, *v.*Joseph Stiner et al., Respondents.

(Argued May 31, 1872;

decided June 4, 1872.)

*John Graham*for the appellants.

*Ira Shafer*for the respondent.

Agbee to affirm; no opinion.

Reported below, 58 Barb., 643.
Exhibit 32.1




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 on Form 10-K of BRIGHTCUBE, INC. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Michael F. Manion, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Brightcube, Inc., certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.








Dated: March 31, 2010





By: /s/Michael F. Manion


Michael F. Manion


Chief Executive Officer


Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph Richards, Appellant, against Robert J. Kirby, as Warden of Sing Sing Prison, Respondent.

Submitted November 15, 1943;

decided November 19, 1943.

Motion for reargument denied. (See 291 N. Y. 75.)