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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 869 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 319
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 869

                          [Report No. 104-217]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
   coastwise trade for the vessel DRAGONESSA, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 26 (legislative day, May 15), 1995

  Mr. Chafee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                            January 26, 1996

              Reported by Mr. Pressler, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
   coastwise trade for the vessel DRAGONESSA, 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. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, 
chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and section 12106 of title 46, United 
States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
coastwise trade for the vessel DRAGONESSA, United States official 
number 646512.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 319

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 869

                          [Report No. 104-217]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
   coastwise trade for the vessel DRAGONESSA, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 26, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13963-13964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-07-2022]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 75--Phoenix, Arizona, Notification of 
Proposed Production Activity, Sunlit Arizona LLC (Specialty Chemicals 
for Microchip Production), Phoenix, Arizona

    Sunlit Arizona LLC submitted a notification of proposed production 
activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Phoenix, 
Arizona within FTZ 75. The notification conforming to the requirements 
of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 3, 
2022.
    Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be 
limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and 
specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification 
(summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The 
benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ 
procedures are explained in the

[[Page 13964]]

background section of the Board's website--accessible via 
www.trade.gov/ftz.
    The proposed finished products include hydrofluoric acid 49%, 
hydrofluoric acid 25%, buffer oxide etchant, aluminum etchant, poly 
etchant, cyclopentanone, propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, 
siloxane remover, and silicon etchant (duty rate ranges from duty-free 
to 6.5%).
    The proposed foreign-status materials and components include 
hydrofluoric acid 60%, ammonium fluoride 40%, nitric acid, acetic acid, 
phosphoric acid, and sulfuric acid (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 
3.1%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are 
subject to duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 
301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable Section 301 
decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in 
privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ef8eae4deeaecfffafbb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="adcbd9d7edd9dfccc9c883cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>. The closing period for their receipt is April 20, 2022.
    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection 
in the ``Online FTZ Information System'' section of the Board's 
website.
    For further information, contact Juanita Chen at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8be1feeae5e2ffeaa5e8e3eee5cbfff9eaefeea5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83e9f6e2edeaf7e2ade0ebe6edc3f7f1e2e7e6ade4ecf5">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 7, 2022.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05215 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Craig and Others *against*Barker and Others.

[Mr. Hord for plaintiffs: Mr. W. C. Marshall for defendants.]

From the Bracken County Court.

*November 5.*

The statute authorizing the county courts to appoint commissioners to divide land among parceners, allot do w er &c. confers a special jurisdiction the record *601in every such ease, must show every fact essen? tial to the valicf ity of the proceeding,

*600Chief Justice Robertson

delivered (he Opinion of the Court.

There having been no waiver of notice by appearance, or otherwise—the order approving the partition of the land must be deemed erroneous, for want of proper evidence of sufficient notice of the application for the appointment of commissioners under the act of 1811, 2 *Stat.*Law, 1070,

The statute requires a notice, and prescribes a particular kind of proof of it; and, in sdch a summary pro-*601heeding, in such a forum, the record should exhibit the prescribed proof of a proper notice to all .concerned. 'The record in this case contains no proof of notice. The declaration that there had been *“due proof of clue no*tice” is only the opinión of the court, and is insufficient to sustain the partition; because, as that court may have erred in its opinion respecting the requisite proof of proper notice', its record should contain sufficient facts, and not mere deductions from undisclosed facts, so that this court may revise the judgment and determine whether it was right.

A recital .in a record, that there Ivas due notice of an intended ap plication, is not sufficient: the notipe itself, and the proof of 'service, must be inserted, that this court may judge of their sufficient cy, and see tliat the statute was pursued!

The record of a county court pro deeding in allotting dower, rn.ust show, that the 1. nd is in the county: othert wise the proceed: ih'gs will be deem ed void; for want of jurisdiction in the court:

Wherefore, as, without legal notice, the partition was unauthorized, and as the record exhibits no'proof of such notice, the order appointing the commissioners and approving their report as to the partition must be set aside and annulled-.

And as the record does not show that the land lies in the county in which the allotment of dower was made, the County Court must be deemed to have erred in appointing commissioners to allot dower, and also, in approving their report; because unless the land lie in that county the court had no jurisdiction; and the jurisdiction of the County Courts being, irt such cases; special, the record should exhibit facts sufficient to show that the court assuming power to allot dower had jurisdiction over the subject.

Wherefore, the order approving the allotment of dowter, is also set aside.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel TREVINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-11228 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(October 31, 2017)

*921Adam W. Overstreet, Gloria A. Bedwell, Steven E. Butler, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before HULL, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Madden, III, appointed counsel for Miguel Trevino in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Trevino’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.2

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 of Gazit-Globe Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gil Kotler, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: April 16, 2014                                      
|                                                           
|/s/ Gil Kotler                                             
|Gil Kotler                                                 
|Senior Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2330

___________________________ United States of America

Plaintiff Appellee v. Cameron Lee Klouda Defendant Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________ Submitted: April 20, 2020 Filed: April 23, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Cameron Klouda appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Klouda. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). Furthermore, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

______________________________

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -2-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7720

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRY D. JONES, a/k/a Rick,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior 

District Judge. (4:95-cr-00037-RGD-1)

Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 30, 2012

Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry D. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Rae McKeel, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry D. Jones appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

order. United States v. Terry, No. 4:95-cr-00037-RGD-1 (E.D. 

Va. Nov. 22, 2011). 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
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-72-2021]

                    On November 5, 2021, the Triangle J Council of Governments, grantee of FTZ 93, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of BrightView Technologies, Inc.,                           ( print page 13700)                        within FTZ 93, in Durham, North Carolina.                

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (86 FR 62985, November 15, 2021). On March 7, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: March 7, 2022.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-05074 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05135]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Data Coordinating 
Center.
    Date: April 5, 2022.
    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health/NIDDK, 6707 Democracy 
Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Elena Sanovich, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 7351, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, 301-
594-8886, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9fecfef1f0e9f6fcf7fadff2fef6f3b1f1f6f7b1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e3d2f202138272d262b0e232f27226020272660292138">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 7, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-05135 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Christopher GAYTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer KUSTANBAUER, Correctional Officer; Officer Phillips, Correctional Officer; Unknown Escorting Officer #2, Correctional Officer; K. Laybourne, Dr., Medical Administrator; Officer Kulfman, Correctional Officer; Unknown Escorting Officer #1, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6662

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 20, 2017

Christopher Gayton, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*187PER CURIAM:

Christopher Gayton appeals the district comet’s orders dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Gayton v. Kustanbauer,*No. 1:16-cv-01577-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. Feb. 10, 2017; filed Apr. 11, 2017, entered Apr. 12, 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
Order entered May 15, 2015

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 15

- 00622

- CV

IN RE PROGRESSIVE COUNTY M UTUAL INSURANCE COMP ANY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 06233



### O RDER

Before Justices Lang, Fillmore and Brown

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

We DENY as moot relator’s request for emergency relief. We ORDER relator to bear the costs

of this original proceeding.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
#### PUIPUI and TUANUU MALOATA of Tau, Plaintiffs v. TAA of Utulei, Defendant

No. 14-1919

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [“Matai” name: “Levao”]

January 18, 1933

H. P. WOOD, *Chief Justice;*PULETU, *Associate Judge;*and MULI, *Associate Judge*

DECISION

This “matai” name case came on to be heard by the High Court on the 18th day of January, 1933.

Presiding: Chief Justice H. P. Wood

Associate Judge Puletu

Associate Judge Muli

The name Levao of Tau was offered for registration by Taa and the objectors were Puipui, Tuanuu and Maloata. Prior to the hearing of the case Puipui joined with Tuanuu in favor of the latter’s candidacy. The present parties are Taa, Tuanuu and Malaota.

It appears from the testimony that this case involves only the name Levao. There are no lands belonging to the name, which appears to be a courtesy .title given many *479years ago by a member of the Tuimanua family, Lalopua, to a man who had rendered sufficient service to him. The name has been held at different times by members of the Punuluu family to which it was originally given, and other times by the Nuualofa family.

Taa, a member of the Nuualofa family, has not lived in Manua for about twenty years. His home has been in Utulei. Tuanuu, a member of the Punuluu family is a “matai” holding a high talking chief’s name at the present time in Ofu; and Maloata, also a member of the Punuluu family is not a “matai” and lives in Tau.

Taa gives as the last holders of the name, Sautia, Tagipo, Peu, Sava, Toliatoato, Mana and Lologo. He traces his descent from Toliatoato and shows that he is this Levao’s great great grandson in the female line.

Tuanuu gives but five holders of the name and traces his descent from Fauato, whose great great grandson he appears to be. The five last holders of the name as given by him are Sautia, Tagipo, Tote, Gutupio and Fauato.

Maloata is admitted to be the true son of the last holder of the name. He gives the last four holders of the name Levao only, and as follows — Sautia, Vaaia, Taufaasoa and Mana.

It will be seen that all the parties agree that Sautia, who was a member of the Punuluu family was the last holder of the name. Two of them agree that Tagipo preceded Sautia and none of them agree on the past holders of the name.

This Court decides “matai” name questions on the basis of heredity. This being the case how can it be held that any of these candidates have as good a right to the “matai” name as Maloata. They all agree that he is the son of the last holder of the name and it is not proved that there ever was a Levao Toliatoato or Fauato from whom Taa and Tuanuu respectively claim descent. Even if it is admitted that there was a Toliatoato or a Fauato, Taa and Tuanuu *480are great great grandsons respectively of these Levaos while Maloata is the son of the last holder of the name.

It is the unanimous decision of this Court that the name Levao be given to Maloata and that the cost of $25.00 be paid in equal parts by Taa and Tuanuu, that is $12.50 each.
#### IN RE: NUVASIVE, INC., Appellant

2015-1839, 2015-1840

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 10, 2017

Michael T. Rosato, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich *&*Rosati, PC, Seattle, WA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Andrew Swanson Brown, Sonja Rochelle Gerrard; Grace J. Pak, Paul David Tripodi, II, Los Angeles, CA; Richard Torczon, Washington, DC.

Sarah E. Craven, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, YA, argued for intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Joseph Matal, Scott Weidenfeller.

(Dyk, O’Malley, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.