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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 95 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 95

To ensure that no person is required, other than on a voluntary basis, 
 to complete certain quarterly financial reports of the Bureau of the 
                                Census.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Coverdell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure that no person is required, other than on a voluntary basis, 
 to complete certain quarterly financial reports of the Bureau of the 
                                Census.

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

SECTION 1. REGULATIONS.

    Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall issue such regulations as may be 
necessary to ensure that no person is required, other than on a 
voluntary basis, to complete or submit to the Bureau of the Census, or 
any other Federal department, agency or instrumentality, form QFR-101, 
QFR-101A, QFR-102, or QFR-103 of the Bureau of the Census, or any 
successor form to such form, unless such person is entitled, under such 
regulations, to fair and reasonable monetary compensation based on the 
time and effort required to complete such form.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0769 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0769

**2003/769/EC: Council Decision of 20 October 2003 appointing an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions **

*
Official Journal L 278 , 29/10/2003 P. 0048 - 0048 *

Council Decision

of 20 October 2003

appointing an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2003/769/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the German Government,

Whereas:

(1) On 22 January 2002, the Council adopted Decision 2002/60/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions(1).

(2) The seat of an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Ms G. LÖTZSCH, of which the Council was notified on 1 October 2003,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

Ms Martina MICHELS, Chairwoman of the European and Federal Affairs Committee of the Berlin House of Representatives, is hereby appointed an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Ms G. LÖTZSCH for the remainder of her term of office, which ends on 25 January 2006.

Done at Luxembourg, 20 October 2003.

For the Council

The President

P. Maroni

(1) OJ L 24, 26.1.2002, p. 38.
#### Marco Josue PRADO-ACOSTA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 15-72364, 16-70145

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

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

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated petitions for review, Marco Josué- Prado-Acosta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of a continuance, and denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance. *Ahmed v. Holder,*569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Prado-Acosta’s request for an additional continuance for lack of good cause, where he did not file an asylum application prior to the IJ’s deadline and therefore waived his opportunity to do so. *See*8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1003.31(c); *Ahmed,*569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider). It follows that Prado-Acosta’s related due process claim fails for lack of error. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Prado-Acosta’s motion to reopen, where he failed to comply with the procedural requirements of *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and any alleged ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. *See Tamang v. Holder,*598 F.3d 1083, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to satisfy *Matter of Lozada*requirements was *589fatal to ineffective assistance of counsel claim where ineffectiveness was not plain on the face of the record).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Wilson v. Smith et al.

1. Statute of Frauds: promise to pay another’s debt: what is not. One of several defendants in an action, being dissatisfied with the judgment rendered, orally promised a co-defendant that, if he would appeal, he would pay half of the attorney’s fees. *Held*that this was not a mere promise to pay the debt of the co-defendant, but his own debt, since he hoped himself to be benefited by the appeal, and it is immaterial whether or not he could have taken any advantage from an appeal to which he was not a party.

*Appeal from Harrison District Oov/rt*— IIon. Gr. W. Wake-field, Judge.

Wednesday, December 11.

The defendants, Joseph H. Smith and O. S. Parker, are executors of the estate of Ezra Perry, deceased. The plaintiff, Allen Wilson, filed a claim against the estate for money paid as attorney’s fee in an action of *Annis Mitchell v. Allen Wilson et al.*The claim was allowed, and the defendants appeal.

*Joseph H.*Smith, for appellants.

*II. II.*Boaclifer, for appellee.

Adams, Ch. J.

The fact appears to be that Annis Mitchell brought an action to establish a boundary line, and made defendants, not only this plaintiff, Allen Wilson, but the deceased, Ezra Perry, and one other person. Erom the judgment establishing the boundary, the defendant, Allen Wilson, (present plaintiff,) appealed. The evidence, we think, tends to show that Perry also felt aggrieved by the judgment, and desired that an appeal should be taken, and told Wilson that he would pay one-half of the cost of the appeal. His promise to pay, however, was a mere verbal promise, and the defendants insist that it was merely a promise to pay the debt of another, and was therefore within the statute of frauds. But, in our opinion, the promise was made by the *430deceased, not with the view of benefiting Wilson alone, but with the view of benefiting himself also. We have no doubt that the deceased thought that a reversal would give him, as well as Wilson, a different and more favorable boundary line. Whether such would have been the result of a reversal upon Wilson’s appeal alone, we need not determine. It is sufficient, we think, that- the decedent expected to secure a benefit and entered into the contract with a view to such result. It is quite possible that Wilson would not have appealed but for the promise made by the deceased. It is certain that the amount of Wilson’s interest involved could hardly be said to justify it. In making the promise, it was for the deceased to judge whether be would be benefited or not, and we do not think that bis estate can escape liability, even if it should appear that he was mistaken. We think that the promise was made with a view to securing a benefit, and that we must assume that the appeal was prosecuted in part for his supposed benefit, if it was not originally taken at his instance.

In our opinion the claim was properly allowed.

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Alesha Dawn Keller, Appellant

No. 06-13-00042-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 

1 of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

CR1200591). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Alesha Dawn Keller, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 27, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Eric Merchant

Air Quality Policy and Planning Supervisor

Air Resources Management Bureau

Montana DEQ
 Western mountain valleys are often subject to elevated 

concentrations of PM2.5. 

 Elevated PM2.5 concentrations often exceed and/or 

violate the primary health-based NAAQS for PM2.5. 

 State/Local programs and various regulatory strategies 

have been employed to address these issues. 

 This case study will evaluate four local program 

strategies to demonstrate the need for clean 

residential wood heating devices.
 Education/outreach

 Cutting deadwood

 Stacking/drying

 Burning techniques 

 Enforcement - Episodic Control/Regulation

 Local episodic control programs – Restrictions

 State

 Engineering/Technical Devices

 Clean wood burning devices

 Larger Mountain Valley

 Wintertime Inversions

 Forest industry community

 Culture of wood burning

 Abundant fuel source

 More complex airshed

 Environmentally progressive

 Regulatory Framework

 Only Pellet Stoves with less than 1.0 g/hr 

emissions can be installed (no wood 

stoves)

 Home ownership changes requires 

removal of older stoves

 No Funded change out program

 Cleaner or fewer wood stoves and an 

episodic control plan worked!

 Compliance with the annual and 24-hr 

PM2.5 NAAQS
 Mountain Valley

 Wintertime inversions

 Culture of wood burning

 Abundant fuel source

 Complex airshed

 Regulatory Framework

 Local control program in process 

(early 2013).

 Episodic control

 Only EPA certified stoves may be 

installed in new or remodeled 

homes

 No funded change out program

 Monitor indicating violation of the 

24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS
 Large Mountain Valley

 Wintertime inversions

 Culture of wood burning

 Abundant fuel source

 Complex airshed

 Regulatory Framework

 New local control program

 Episodic control

 No funded change out 

program

 Monitor indicating violation 

of the 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS
 Demonstrated that cleaner wood stoves are part of the 

solution. 

 Education, Enforcement, Engineering

 Clean Air Act (section 111) provides the mechanism 

needed to lessen impacts from this type of behavior.

 Strong Residential Wood Burning Device NSPS 

 Drive manufacturers’ to create cleaner burning 

devices.
 M. Eric Merchant

Air Quality Policy and Planning Supervisor

Air Resources Management Bureau

Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality

Phone: (406) 444-1457

Email: emerchant@mt.gov

 Stephen Coe P.E.

Senior Planning Engineer

Air Resources Management Bureau

Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality

Phone: (406) 782-2689 ext. 209 

Email: scoe@mt.gov
**RB** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0420 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHARLES MICHAEL BYRNE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 6 0 -day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including March 16 , 2021 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 11 2021

01/11/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0420
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael BUSTAMANTE, a.k.a. Ralph Bustamante, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-56254

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Deirdre Zalud Eliot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S, Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Eric S. Montalvo, Attorney, Federal Practice Group, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Former federal prisoner Rafael Busta-mante appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a coram nobis petition de novo, *see United States v. Riedl,*496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

Bustamante contends that he is entitled to coram nobis relief because counsel was ineffective for failing to secure a sentence that would have made him eligible for relief from deportation under former Immigration Nationality Act § 212(c). The record does not support Bustamante’s claim that counsel could have negotiated a disposition that would have qualified him for § 212 relief.

Bustamante also, argues, for the first time on appeal, that, his attorney affirmatively misled him regarding the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. Even *538if this claim is properly before this court, *see Beets v. County of Los Angeles,*669 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2012), the record shows that Bustamante was advised, and understood, that the conviction could subject him to deportation. Contrary to Busta-mante’s contention, the record is sufficiently developed to make this determination, and his alternative request that this court remand for further proceedings is, accordingly, denied.

Because Bustamante has not shown that his counsel’s performance was neither deficient nor prejudicial, he has not established an error “of the most fundamental character” entitling him to a writ of error coram nobis. *See Riedl,*496 F.3d at 1005-06.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6373 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6373

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
      at 324 West Saint Louis Street in Pacific, Missouri, as the 
           ``Specialist Jeffrey L. White, Jr. Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2016

Mr. Luetkemeyer (for himself, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. 
Smith of Missouri, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Long, Mrs. Wagner, and Mr. Clay) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
      at 324 West Saint Louis Street in Pacific, Missouri, as the 
           ``Specialist Jeffrey L. White, Jr. Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST JEFFREY L. WHITE, JR. POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 324 West Saint Louis Street in Pacific, Missouri, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Specialist Jeffrey L. White, Jr. Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Specialist 
Jeffrey L. White, Jr. Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
# Nove mbe r 1 , 2

Oak Ridge Fational L& OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORA TORY 

### U. S. D EPARTMENT OF ENERGY ri^ 

# loratory UT-SATTELLE 1

# i v& fu rther

n g process O A 

### K RI DGE NATIONAL 

### LAB ORATORY 

### U. S. D EP

AR TMENT OF ENERGY UT-BATTELLE 2

## Q



# c -icts on h 'a duct i

'l 

# th or
OAK RIDGE NATION 

### LABORA T 

### OR Y U. 

### S. D EP

AR TM ENT OF ENERGY U

UT-BATTELLE 3AOU Ng dO INHW L da "S 1l .U OJ O '1 -IVNOILVNI aD

J 

# ( i I e p u u OMS-PI M 

## IOS) 

# SOMIUO ,^TP 

# GIG l E =, ,):,A
to );®i 

# !' sjojonpuo3j8UOl4U8AUO:)

jejew snGL Jl 

## d ,I 

## OWB 

## JIBAe ) 

## Aguc :

## Un3 ^^`%;T
Exhibit 31.1

I,
B. Allen Weinstein, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Body Central Corp.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Dated:
March 31, 2011

/s/ B. ALLEN WEINSTEIN B. Allen Weinstein President, Chief Executive Officer and Director


---



QuickLinks
#### Vauda Virgle SHIPP, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Zack HAWTHORN, Magistrate Judge; Rachel Chapa; Frank Lara; Dallas Jones; Joel Lyn A. McCormick; Leena Alaam; Timothy Faerber; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-41693 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 17, 2017

Vauda Virgle Shipp, Jr., Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Vauda Virgle Shipp, Jr., federal prisoner # 09724-062, appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failing to comply with the court’s order to pay the initial partial filing fee.

We review a district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order for abuse of discretion. *McCullough v. Lynaugh,*835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). Shipp does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that he failed to comply with the court’s order to pay the initial filing fee.-By failing to brief any argument challenging the district court’s reason for dismissal, Shipp has abandoned the issue. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Thus, he has not shown that, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his action without prejudice. *See McCullough,*835 F.2d at 1127.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Shipp’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief 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.
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

══════════



### No. 17

- 1048

══════════ 

### O SCAR 

### O RTIZ 

### , P ETITIONER 

### ,

v. 

### S TATE 

### F ARM 

### L LOYDS 

### , R ESPONDENT

══════════════════ ════════════════════════ O N P ETITION FOR R EVIEW FROM THE C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F OURTH D ISTRICT OF T EXAS

══════════════════ ════════════════════════ J USTICE B OYD , concurring in part and dissenting in part

. In this insurance

- coverage case, the Court holds that the insurer’s payment of the appraisal amount, which established the covered loss, precludes a claim that the insurer breached the policy by failing to pay the covered loss. The Court also holds that th e insurer’s payment bars extracontractual bad

- faith claims that seek damages totaling no more than the covered loss. I agree with these conclusions and join those parts of the Court’s opinion. I write separately to distinguish my view on the insured’s clai m under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act. See T EX
. I NS
. C ODE §§ 542.051

– .061. The Court holds that the insured may proceed on this claim in light of our concurrently issued decision in Barbara Tech s. Corp. v. State Farm Lloyds , No. 17

– 0640,

— S.W.3d

— (Tex. June 28, 2019). There, in a similar factual context, the Court remands to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether the insured’s claim is “invalid” and “should not be paid” or whether the insurer “is liab le” under the policy. See id. at ___ (discussing T EX
. I NS
. C ODE §§ 542.058, .060). As explained in my separate opinion in that case, I would hold that section2 .058 applies and section .060 does not, and that

— regardless of which section applies

— the insurer conceded the claim’s validity and its own liability by voluntarily and unconditionally paying the benefits claim ed

. Thus, I would remand solely to determine the amount of statutory interest and attorney’s fees the insurer owes the insured. See id. at ___ ( B OYD , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part ). Because I would do the same here, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part in this case as well

.

_____________________ Jeffrey S. Boyd Justice Opinion delivered: June 28, 2019
EXHIBIT 35.2
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
             RALI SERIES 2006-QS18 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

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

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

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

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Executive Vice President