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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6820 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6820

   To amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to remove the 
  exclusion of certain small business concerns from the disadvantaged 
          business enterprise program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2023

  Mr. Johnson of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Evans, Mr. Carson, and Mr. 
Bishop of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Small Business, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to remove the 
  exclusion of certain small business concerns from the disadvantaged 
          business enterprise program, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Small Business Contracting Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES.

    Section 11101(e)(2)(A) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act (Public Law 117-58; 135 Stat. 449) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(A) `Small business concern'.--The term `small 
                business concern' means a small business concern (as 
                the term is used in section 3 of the Small Business Act 
                (15 U.S.C. 632)).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lorenzo CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73938

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 3, 2017

Douglas Jalaie, Esquire, Attorney, The Law Office of Douglas Jalaie, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

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

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lorenzo Cabrera,' a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings. *Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch,*828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review,

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Cabrera failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. *See Zheng v. Holder,*644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of torture speculative); *Dhital v. Mukasey,*532 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence did not indicate a particularized threat of torture to petitioner).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

February 24, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with CARB Staff 10/28/13 on HDV In-Use Emissions Standards

FROM: Don Kopinski

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472

This memo documents a phone meeting held on October 28, 2013 between representatives of the 

California Air Resources Board and EPA to discuss Tier 3 heavy-duty vehicle in-use emissions 

standards. The meeting attendees from CARB included Paul Hughes and David Eiges, and from 

EPA included Tony Fernandez, Michael Olechiw, and myself.

The purpose of the meeting was to clarify the thinking of the two agencies on the subject topic. 

No written materials were exchanged.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel De Jesus CAMARILLO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41662 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

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

Manuel De Jesus Camarillo, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Manuel De Jesus Camarillo 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). Camarillo has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant parts 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.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Florence L. Hutson to Compel James R. Duncan et al., as Trustees for George W. Fowler, under the Will of George Fowler, Deceased, to Pay Over Income of the Trust to Her. Florence L. Hutson, Petitioner-Respondent; James R. Duncan, The City National Bank of Binghamton, and Raymond D. Dewey, as Trustees under the Will of George Fowler, Deceased, Appellants; George W. Fowler, Respondent.

Argued June 17, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*517
      *G. W. Turner*for appellants.

*W. B. Roulstone*for Florence L. Hutson, respondent.

*Clinton DeWitt Van Siclen*and *John G. Powers*for George W. Fowler, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs to all attorneys payable out of the fund. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lotjghran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
### Phantom 2 Vision+ Checklist Preflight 1. Remove transmitter. 3. 

### 4. Toggle Switches and Antenna - Full Up 5. Phone - On - Battery 

### >70% - Airplane Mode On - Wifi On - Phone Volume Full Up 6. Remove UAV from case. 6. UAV Airframe and 

### 8. Micro-SD card - Inserted Check 9. UAV Battery - Inserted Check 10. Place UAV in clear and safe launch and recovery position ifit returns to home. 11. UAV B - On- V . 12. 12. Wifi Connection to Phone- Verified 13. DJI Application- Open 14. DJI application - Tap Camera icon to connect to Camera - verify 15. SD Card- Check 16. Camera - Full U -Gimbalfree and correct 16. -(rearlights blink red and yellow) flip S1 five times- rear UAV lights solid yellow - UAV Horizontal 360rotation- rear lights Green - UAV Vertical 360 rotation with nose down normal blink ·18. Charge Levels - Safe for Flight 18. 

### Toggle Switches- Full Up- Check 19. Video Recording- Start 20. Start Motors - CSC - sticks bottom inside corners 20. Smooth motors - Check 20. Takeoff 1. Hover approximately ten feet above the ground to confirm UAV is under control. 2.All sticks operate correctly while in hoverVerified 

### Phantom 2 Vision + Checklist 1. Camera - Full Up 2. Landing Zone - Clear I Safe 

### Post-Landing -Returning to Flight Immediately 

### 1. Battery - Remove & Replace 2. Wifi Connection to Monitor - Verified 3. DJI application - Connect to Camera 

### 4. Satellite Connections - Verified - Rearlights slow greenflash 5. Charge Levels - Safe for Flight 

### 6. 

### Toggle Switches - FullUp - Check 7. Video Recording - Start 

### 8. Start Motors- CSC- sticks bottom inside corners 9. Smooth motors - Check 10. Takeoff- Hover - Verify UAV Control 

### EndofO 1. Battery - Off 2. Transmitter - Off 3. Router - Off 

### Failsafe Returnto Home Mode Intercept the returnhome mode- toggle Slto centerorlowerposition- take control ofthe UAV
#### William Urbach, Resp’t, v. Theodore H. Mulch, App’lt.

Appeal from judgment of this court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

*Name and Committee Code:*                     Advisory Committee for Polar Programs (1130).                

*Date and Time:*                     March 24-25, 2022; 11:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.                

*Place:*      ( print page 11100)    

 National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 | Virtual.

                    Registration for the virtual meeting will be available two weeks prior to the meeting date. Final agenda and registration link will be located on the AC's website at:                     *https://www.nsf.gov/​geo/​opp/​advisory.jsp.*

*Type of Meeting:*                     Open.                

*Contact Person:*                     Beverly Walker, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Telephone: (703) 292-2614.                

*Minutes:*                     May be obtained from the contact person listed above.                

*Purpose of Meeting:*                     To provide advice and recommendations to the National Science Foundation concerning support for polar research, education, infrastructure and logistics, and related activities.                

## Agenda

### March 24, 2022; 11:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (Virtual)

    - Upcoming field seasons and COVID-19
    - Advisory Committee Liaison Updates
    - Subcommittee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
    - Antarctic Research Vessel Updates
    - NSF Geoscience Directorate Activities Updates

### March 25, 2022; 11:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (Virtual)

    - Polar Partnerships
    - Meeting with the NSF Director & Chief Operating Officer
    - NASEM Mid-Term Report
    - South Pole Station
    - Russian Science Collaborations

Dated: February 22, 2022.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2022-04100 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### The Mayor, etc., of New York, Resp’t, *v.*Mary A. Kent *et al.,*App’lts.

*David J. Dean,*for resp’t; *Benjamin Yates,*for app’lts.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.
#### Louise M. Ennis, Appellant, *v.*National Bank and Trust Company of Skaneateles, N. Y., as Executor of Edward C. Miller, Deceased, Respondent.

Argued October 4, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

*668
      *Melvin A. Weeks*for motion.

*Louise M. Erniis,*in person, opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, without costs on the ground that no appeal lies as of right, and no permission to appeal has been granted. '
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 746 

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to require humane treatment of animals 

by Federal Government facilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2015 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. BUCHANAN, and Ms. 

SLAUGHTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to require humane 

treatment of animals by Federal Government facilities. 

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 ‘‘The Animal Welfare 

5 in Agricultural Research Endeavors Act’’ or the ‘‘AWARE 

6 Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. ANIMAL WELFARE. 

8 Section 14 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 

9 2144) is amended— 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 746 IH

1 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘Any’’ and 

2 inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3), 

4 any Federal research facility or any other’’; 

5 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘Any’’ 

6 and inserting the following: 

7 ‘‘(2) ANIMAL EXHIBITION.—Any’’; and 

8 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(3) EXCLUSIONS NOT APPLICABLE.—For pur10 poses of the application of standards and other re11 quirements described in paragraph (1) to a Federal 

12 research facility or any other department, agency, or 

13 instrumentality of the United States having labora14 tory animal facilities, the exclusions contained in 

15 section 2(g)(3) shall not apply.’’. 

Æ 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8181

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

LORENZA S. HILL, a/k/a Squeezy, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00302-REP-1) 

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Lorenza S. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Lorenza S. Hill appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction 

of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Hill, No. 3:05-cr-00302-REP-1 

(E.D. Va. Sept. 19, 2008). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 34.3**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

To Board of Directors and Stockholders of SunTrust Bank:

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria thatSunTrust Bank complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Genworth Global Funding Trusts (the Platform), as of December 31, 2006 and for the yearthen ended for criterion 1122(d)4(ii). Exhibit A to management’s assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination. 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with standards of 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 servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activitiesrelated to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactionsand servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may haveaffected 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 onthe Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006 for the Genworth Global Funding Trusts is fairly stated, in all material respects.
#### John Charles CALLAHAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20886.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 6, 1966.

Franklin Rittenhouse, Las Vegas, Nev., for appellant.

Joseph L. Ward, U. S. Atty., Robert S. Linnell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, KOELSCH and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This case is a companion to Hayter v. United States, 9 Cir., 362 F.2d 973, and involves the same robbery of the First National Bank of Nevada. We affirm the conviction.

The bank’s F.D.I.C. charter was put in evidence to prove the bank was federally insured. We cannot agree with defendant-appellant that this was not enough. Cook v. United States, 5 Cir., 320 F.2d 258.

On the search made of the house of Mrs. Price, good friend of Hayter, there was complete consent of Mrs. Price. In our view, Burge v. United States, 9 Cir., 333 F.2d 210, rehearing 342 F.2d 408 and Nelson v. People of State of California, 9 Cir., 346 F.2d 73, support the government rather than Callahan, as he contends. Therefore, we reject the attack on the search which produced a gun of the type used in the robbery and much of the money taken in the robbery. (Some of the money had been pre-marked by the bank in anticipation of any holdup.)

For the reasons above and those given in Hayter, supra, we decline to reverse.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
               FROM THE ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
               ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-3-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 OCT-2-1999
<CASH>                                            5,942
<SECURITIES>                                      2,726
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9,003
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                       7,321
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 25,617
<PP&E>                                            6,270
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   33,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5,772
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              9
<OTHER-SE>                                       27,346
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     33,357
<SALES>                                          30,708
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 34,227
<CGS>                                            13,201
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    13,201
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 18,451
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2,839
<INCOME-TAX>                                        114
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2,725
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2,725
<EPS-BASIC>                                     $0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $0.28



</TABLE>
#### Scott Lee MICKELSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen POULTER, Sgt., IFPD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35686

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

Scott Lee Mickelsen, Pro Se

Blake G. Hall, Sam L. Angelí, Esquire, Attorney, Hall Angelí & Associates, LLP, Idaho Falls, ID, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Scott Lee Mickelsen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mickelsen’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because Mickelsen failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. *See id.*at 1263 (grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)); *see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza,*291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute).

We reject as meritless Mickelsen’s contention that the magistrate judge erred in not examining the police department video.

Mickelsen’s request for the appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not'precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### J. Numa Jordy, Appellant, *v.*Frango Corporation, Respondent.

Argued November 18, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*782
      *Alexmtder Pfeiffer, Julius D. Freilicher*and *Myron P. Gordon*for appellant.

*Thomas J. Blahe*and *James A. Walsh*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway. Desmond and Thacheb, JJ.