alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### L. A. S., individually and on behalf of her minor child, S.A.S., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, State of HAWAII, Department of Education; Kathryn Matayoshi, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the Hawaii Public Schools, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-17443

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 14, 2017 Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed June 27, 2017

Howard Seth Peck, Howard Peck, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Kunio Kuwabe, Attorney, Holly T. Shi-kada, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Gary S. Suganuma, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGHI—Office of the Attorney General Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: FISHER, PAEZ and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*843MEMORANDUM *

L.A.S., individually and on behalf of her minor child, S.A.S., brought this appeal involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The district court did not err in reversing the administrative hearing officer’s (AHO) first determination, because L.A.S.’s administrative complaint did not plead the issue the AHO decided. *See Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J,*502 F.3d 811, 817 (9th Cir. 2007) (reviewing a district court’s legal conclusions de novo). Plaintiff has not cited any authority preventing the district court from limiting the scope of the proceedings to those issues raised in the administrative complaint and argued by a plaintiff. *See K.D. ex rel. C.L. v. Dep’t of Educ., Haw.,*665 F.3d 1110, 1117 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the party challenging the district court’s holding bears the burden of proof on appeal); *see also Cty. of San Diego v. Calif. Special Educ. Hearing Office,*93 F.3d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding the scope of the administrative hearing is limited to the administrative complaint raised to obtain the hearing).

2. The district court also did not err in affirming the AHO’s second determination finding no predetermination by the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE). *See KD.,*665 F.3d at 1123 (holding a school district violates the IDEA if it predetermines a student’s placement before the individualized education plan is developed). Plaintiff has not shown the DOE was unwilling to consider locating S.A.S. in private school. *See id.*(considering the DOE’s actions and intent in a predetermination inquiry). Further, Plaintiff has not cited to any authority supporting her argument that the inquiry turns on her interpretation of the letter rather than the DOE’s intent. *See id.*at 1117 (explaining that the party challenging the district court’s holding bears the burden of proof on appeal). The March 2011 letter is somewhat troubling but, on its own, is insufficient to carry Plaintiffs burden.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Thomas Shane MATHERLY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Justin ANDREWS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6270

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 29, 2017

Decided: July 10, 2017

Thomas Shane Matherly, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lockridge, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

*734Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Shane Matherly, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order determining, after remand from this court, that Matherly was in the legal custody of the Bureau of Prisons when the government filed a certificate designating Math-erly as a sexually dangerous person, and therefore denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Matherly v. Andrews,*No. 5:13-hc-02077-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 21, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 661 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 661

  To terminate the Economic Development Administration, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2015

    Mr. Pompeo (for himself, Mr. McClintock, and Mr. Westmoreland) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on 
 Financial Services, 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 terminate the Economic Development Administration, 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 ``EDA Elimination Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION.

    (a) Termination.--The Economic Development Administration is 
terminated.
    (b) Repeal.--The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 
(42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq.) is repealed.
    (c) Conclusion of Business.--The Secretary of Commerce shall take 
such actions as may be necessary and appropriate to conclude the 
outstanding affairs of the Economic Development Administration, 
including dispositions of personnel, assets, and obligations.
    (d) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--This section may not be 
construed to prevent the expenditure of any funds received before the 
effective date of this Act. Such funds shall be subject to the laws and 
regulations that would have applied to the funds if this section had 
not been enacted.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on the first day of the first fiscal 
year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from financial
statements for the quarter ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety
as reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,178
<SECURITIES>                                       433
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,523
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (967)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,219
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,800
<PP&E>                                           8,438
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,465)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,198
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,773
<SALES>                                         14,812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,812
<CGS>                                            7,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,161
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    253
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                253
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       253
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 12

             CASE CREDIT CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Nine Months   Nine Months
                                                                  Ended         Ended
                                                              September 30, September 30,
                                                                  2002          2001
-                                                             ------------- -------------
<S>                                                           <C>           <C>
Net loss from continuing operations..........................     $  (2)        $ (17)
Add:
   Interest expense..........................................       104           141
   Income tax benefit........................................        (2)          (10)
   Unremitted earnings from equity method investments........        --            (2)
                                                                  -----         -----
       Earnings as defined...................................     $ 100         $ 112
                                                                  =====         =====
Interest expense.............................................     $ 104         $ 141
                                                                  -----         -----
       Fixed charges as defined..............................     $ 104         $ 141
                                                                  =====         =====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges from continuing operations      .96x          .79x
                                                                  =====         =====
</TABLE>


                                      21
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12119-12120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04418]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB856]


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of webconference.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Bering 
Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan (BS FEP) Team will be held on March 18, 
2022, and on March 21, 2022.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Friday, March 18, 2022, from 8 a.m. 
to 12 p.m. and on Monday, March 21, 2022, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., 
Alaska Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be a webconference. Join online through the

[[Page 12120]]

link at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2858.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1007 W 
3rd Ave, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809. 
Instructions for attending the meeting are given under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION, below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dian Evans, Council staff; phone: 
(907) 271-2809 and email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3d7dad2ddd29dd6c5d2ddc0f3dddcd2d29dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cca8a5ada2ade2a9baada2bf8ca2a3adade2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>. For technical support, 
please contact our administrative staff; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ce2fceae1efa2ede8e1e5e2cce2e3ededa2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e08e90868d83ce81848d898ea08e8f8181ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

Friday, March 18, 2022, and Monday, March 21, 2022

    The agenda will include: (a) Introductions, agenda, and team member 
roundtable; (b) discuss FEP team Health Report Prototype; (c) BS FEP 
taskforce progress; (d) planning for further Health Report work; and 
(e) other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest 
version will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2853 prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

Connection Information

    You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or 
smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted 
online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2853.

Public Comment

    Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted 
electronically to https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/2853.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 25, 2022.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-04418 Filed 3-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Honorable Ralph Logan CountyAttorney Ton Oreen County San Angelo,Texan Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-3446 Re: Qual.iflcatlonr of perronm entitled

to vote for county schooltrusteea. We received

your letter datedApril 23, 1941, requesting our opinion on the following question: Are the qualified

voters of the San Angelo Independent SchoolDistrict

proper electors

to vote for a member of the CountyBoard elected from PrecinctOne a? Tom Green County? We appreciate

your opinion

and analysis

of the question which you submitted with your request. involved

You state in your letterthat the City of San Angelo lien wholly within PrecinctOne.

Article 2676, Vernon's Annotated

Civil Statutes,

reads, in part, a* follows:

"The general

management

and control

of the public free schools

and high schools in each county, unless otherwise

provided by law shallbe vested in five (5) county echo01trustees electedfrom the county,one of whom shallbe electedfrom the county at large by the qualified voters of the cormton and consolidated

independent

schooldistricts

of the county,

and one from each Commissioners' Precinct

by the qual.iffed

voters of Commissioners'

Precinct,

who shallhold offfce for a term of two years. . -" (Underscoring ours) We held in our opinion No. O-3235 "that all qualified voters of the Commissioners'

Precincts

of the county

may vote for the county schooltrustee from their respective precincts

without reference

to whether such voters reside in common or independent schooldistricts

of whatsoever

nature." We wish to point out, however, that this rule is not applicable to the truetee

who is elected

by the countyat large.Honorable Ralph Logan,Page 2 (0-3446)

You are advised

that all of the qualified voters of Commissioners~ Precinct

Eo. One, which includes the San Angelo Independent SchoolDistrict, are proper electors to vote for a member of the County SchoolBoard elected from PrecinctOne of Tom Green County.

We enclose copiee of our opinions Hoe. O-3235 and 0-2066 wherein the questionla more fully diecursed. Yourn very truly APPROVED

MAY 7, 1941 /6/ Grover Seller-8 FIRST ASSISTAET All'OBEEYGElVEBAL LS:lh:lm 2 enc. ATiXBEEYGEEEBALOFTEEAS By /6/ Lee Shoptaw

Lee Shoptaw ABBistsnt

APPROVED OPIEIOE COMMITTEE BY /e/ BWB CHAlRMAa
EX-34 (h)



(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
1601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:

We have examined management's assessment for those customers that
management has informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included
in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria
set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those
issuers of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables
portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions
(the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Regulus Group LLC
has determined that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable
to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the 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 servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures
as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included
testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and
securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing
activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company
processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in
compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited
to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company
during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to
determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our
tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by
the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected
transactions or any other transactions. 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 assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ KPMG LLP


Philadelphia, PA
February 22, 2007


KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6849 

To prohibit the establishment of a Civilian Climate Corps, American Climate 

Corps, or any similar program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2023 

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the establishment of a Civilian Climate Corps, 

American Climate Corps, or any similar program, 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 ‘‘Cancelling Climate 

5 Crusaders Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING A CIVILIAN CLIMATE CORPS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law or any executive action, the Corporation for 

9 National and Community Service (in this Act referred to 

10 as the ‘‘Corporation’’) shall not establish a Civilian CliVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:35 Jan 05, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6849.IH H6849

ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6849 IH

1 mate Corps, American Climate Corps, or any similar pro2 gram as described in Executive Order 14008 (86 Fed. 

3 Reg. 7619, relating to tackling the climate crisis). 

4 (b) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—The Corporation shall 

5 not establish any program, direct any entity to create such 

6 a program, or provide guidance to any partnering entity 

7 to engage in any of the following activities: 

8 (1) Promoting environmental justice. 

9 (2) Restoring roads to natural conditions. 

10 (3) Remediating and reclaiming devastated 

11 lands left by extractive industries. 

12 (4) Organizing community-based resiliency coa13 litions and working groups. 

14 (5) Developing farm to institution distribution 

15 models. 

16 (6) Conducting energy audits. 

17 (7) Advising citizens on climate policy. 

18 (8) Educating students through school and 

19 youth programs. 

20 (9) Improving pollution monitoring. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Lance LYLES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Cecelia REYNOLDS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7334

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2017

Decided: April 6, 2017

Lance Lyles, Appellant Pro Se.

Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lance Lyles seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Lyles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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*