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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 60 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 60

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of business on 
Thursday, May 23, 1996, Friday, May 24, 1996, or Saturday, May 25, 
1996, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or his designee, 
in accordance with this resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned 
until noon on Monday, June 3, 1996, or Tuesday, June 4, 1996, or until 
such time on that day as may be specified by the Majority Leader or his 
designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the 
second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 
2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when 
the House of Representatives adjourns on the legislative day of 
Thursday, May 23, 1996, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on 
Wednesday, May 29, 1996, or until noon on the second day after Members 
are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the Senate and Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members 
of the Senate and the House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in 
their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the Senate May 23, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 60

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and the 
                       House of Representatives.
```
#### Christian CASTRO-ALVARADO, AKA Omar Cosio-Alvarado, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-71004

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*623Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 22, 2017

Carlos Alfredo Cruz, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner

Michael Christopher Heyse, 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, for 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 **

Christian Castro-Alvarado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Castro-Alvarado failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected ground. *See Ayala v. Holder,*640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be *on account*of his. membership in such group” (emphasis in original)); *see also Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be fi’ee from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

We do not address Castro-Alvarado’s contentions regarding the one-year asylum bar, credibility, the cognizability of his proposed social group, and the government’s willingness or ability to control his alleged persecutors because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. *See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder,*657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Castro-Alvarado’s CAT claim because he did not demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. *See Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We reject his contention that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Grecia del Carmen MONJARAS-ROMERO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1436

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: December 14, 2017

*126Edmundo G. Rogers, U.S. IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS, LLC, Lauderhill, Florida, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier,Acting Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Todd J. Cochran, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Grecia del Carmen Monjaras-Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the- Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum and withholding of removal.* We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Monjaras-Romero’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, *see 8*U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, *see INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

We have also considered the various bases for Monjaras-Romero’s claim that the immigration judge’s conduct at the merits hearing violated her due process rights and find no error in the Board’s conclusion that Monjaras-Romero failed to show that the immigration judge was biased or that she did not receive a full or fair hearing. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(l) (2012) (giving immigration judges authority to “interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien and any witnesses”); *Rusu v.*INS, 296 F.3d 316, 321-22 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing that an alien must be “accorded an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, i.e., ... [to] receive a full and fair hearing on [her] claims”).

We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *In re Monjaras-Romero*(B.I.A. Mar. 10, 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*

*

 Monjaras-Romero does not challenge the denial of her request for protection under the Convention Against Torture and has therefore waived appellate review. *See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7032 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7032

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 30, 2024

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
 to provide the Congressional Budget Office with necessary authorities 
to expedite the sharing of data from executive branch agencies, 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 ``Congressional Budget Office Data 
Sharing Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUESTS BY CBO OF INFORMATION FROM EXECUTIVE AGENCIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 201(d) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601(d)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The Director is authorized'' and 
        inserting ``(1) The Director is authorized'';
            (2) by striking ``(other than material the disclosure of 
        which would be a violation of law)'' and inserting ``(with or 
        without written agreement) provided that the Director maintains 
        the level of confidentiality required by law of the department, 
        agency, establishment, or regulatory agency or commission from 
        which it is obtained in accordance with section 203(e)''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) No provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment 
of the Congressional Budget Office Data Sharing Act shall be construed 
to supersede, limit, or otherwise modify the authority of the Director 
to obtain any material under this subsection unless such provision 
specifically provides, by specific reference to this paragraph, that 
such authority is to be superseded, limited, or otherwise modified.''.
    (b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
shall submit, to the chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the 
House of Representatives and the Senate, a report listing any request 
for information pursuant to a written agreement under section 201(d) of 
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
601(d)), as amended by subsection (a) of this Act, made to any 
department, agency, or establishment of the executive branch of 
Government or any regulatory agency or commission of the Government and 
any challenges faced accessing information under such section.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 29, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# EUR-Lex - 32002R0550 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R0550

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 550/2002 of 27 March 2002 determining the extent to which the applications for import licences submitted in March 2002 for cheese originating in South Africa under a tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 can be accepted **

*
Official Journal L 084 , 28/03/2002 P. 0015 - 0015 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 550/2002

of 27 March 2002

determining the extent to which the applications for import licences submitted in March 2002 for cheese originating in South Africa under a tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 can be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1670/2000(2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas(3), and in particular Article 16(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 381/2002 of 28 February 2002 derogating from Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 as regards import licence applications for cheese from South Africa(4) reopens the period for lodging those applications.

(2) The quantities covered by applications lodged in March 2002 for the products covered by quota No 09.4151 referred to in Annex I(E) to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 do not exceed the quantities available. All the applications lodged should therefore be accepted,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Import licence applications lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 381/2002 for the products covered by quota No 09.4151 referred to in Annex I(E) to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 shall be accepted for the quantities requested.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 March 2002.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 March 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48.

(2) OJ L 79, 22.3.2002, p. 15.

(3) OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 29.

(4) OJ L 60, 1.3.2002, p. 28.
Opinion filed June 13 , 201 3



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________


### No. 11

- 13

- 00115

- C V

_________


### MICHAEL HARTLOVE , Appellant

V.

BUTTS RECYCLING, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 238th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV47405

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Both parties to this appeal, Michael Hartlove and Butts Recycling, Inc.,
timely filed notices of appeal from the trial court’s judgment entered on

January 10, 2013. Each of them have now filed an unopposed motion to dismiss

the appeal pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4 2.1 (a)(1)

. In the motion s , the parties allege
that they have reached a settlement o n all matters and that they no longer wish to
pursue an appeal . The parties further allege that the judgm ent that is the subject of2 this appeal has been vacated as a part of their settlement and that the underlying
case has been dismissed with prejudice

. The parties ask this court to dismiss the
appeal. They additionally request that all costs be assessed against the party
incurring same. Therefore, in accordance with the parties’ request, we dismiss the
appeal.

The motion s to dismiss are granted

, and the appeal is dismissed. All costs
are assessed agai nst the parties incurring same.

PER CURIAM

June 13 , 2013
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson, J.
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS CEDRI C L AVERT DAV I DSON, Ap pe lla nt,
v.
TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § No
. 08 -0 8- 00 13 8- CR

Appea l from the 363rd District

Court of Dallas County , Texas ( T C# F
- 0 7 2 5 1 0 6
- W)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Pending be fore the Court is Appellant’s mo t ion to dism iss this appea l pursuant to T EX . R. A PP . P. 42 .2 (a ), wh ic h s ta te s th a t: At any time be fore the appellate court’s de cision, the appe llate cour t may dismiss the ap p ea l u p o n t h e a p p el l an t ’s m o t i o n . T h e ap p el l an tan d h i s o r h er at t o rn ey m u s ts i gn the w r it te n mo ti o n to d is mi s s a n d f il e it in d u p li c a te w it

h th e a p p e ll a te c le r

k, who must im mediately

send the duplica te copy

to the trial court c lerk. Appellant and his attorney have filed and signe d the motion to dismiss
. This Court has not issued an opinion in this cause , and the Clerk of this Court has for war ded a duplicate of this motion to the District Clerk of Da llas County , Texas. A s Appellant has complied with the require ments of Rule 42.2(a) , the Court has consider ed this cause on Appellant’s motion and conc ludes the motion should be g rante d, and the a ppeal should be dismissed. We t he re fo re dis mis s th e a

pp e a l.

GUADA L UPE RI VERA, J usticeDec ember 18, 2008 B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demetrius Lydell BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6568

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

Louis C. Allen, Acting Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, Eric J. Brignae, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions áre not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Demetrius Lydell Bryant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Bryant,*Nos. 5:05-cr-00221-FL-1; 5:16-cv-00311-FL, 2017 WL 1458722 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 24, 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*
##### 



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS REPORT

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Party City Corporation
Rockaway, New Jersey

We have reviewed the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets of
Party City Corporation and Subsidiary as of December 27, 2003 and December 28,
2002, and the related Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for the
quarters and six months ended December 27, 2003 and December 28, 2002 and Cash
Flows for the six months ended December 27, 2003 and December 28, 2002. These
interim financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys
management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and of making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted
in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States
of America, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding
the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such
an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that
should be made to such condensed consolidated financial statements for them to
be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, the Consolidated Balance Sheet of
Party City Corporation and Subsidiary as of June 28, 2003, and the related
Consolidated Statements of Income, Shareholders Equity, and Cash Flows for the
year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated August 21,
2003, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial
statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 28, 2003 is fairly stated, in all
material respects, in relation to the Consolidated Balance Sheet from which it
has been derived.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New York, New York
February 9, 2004

26
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMOQUEST
CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 3, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                                140,959
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          96,943
<ALLOWANCES>                                            3,692
<INVENTORY>                                            73,545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      323,890
<PP&E>                                                 89,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                         28,143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        632,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 119,147
<BONDS>                                                73,886
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  515
<OTHER-SE>                                            414,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          632,543
<SALES>                                               105,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      105,619
<CGS>                                                  54,911
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          54,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        7,468
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           28
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      1,356
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        18,657
<INCOME-TAX>                                            7,836
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    10,821
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           10,821
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.21
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 35 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 35

   Expressing the opposition of the Congress to President Clinton's 
      planned deployment of United States ground forces to Bosnia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 13, 1995

 Mrs. Hutchison (for herself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Craig, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
  Kyl, Mr. Lott, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Brown, Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell, Mr. 
Coats, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Frist, Mr. Grams, 
Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Pressler, Mr. 
Santorum, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Smith, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Thomas, 
  Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Thurmond) submitted the following concurrent 
           resolution; which was considered and not agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the opposition of the Congress to President Clinton's 
      planned deployment of United States ground forces to Bosnia.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO THE DEPLOYMENT DECISION.

    The Congress opposes President Clinton's decision to deploy United 
States military ground forces into the Republic of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina to implement the General Framework Agreement for Peace in 
Bosnia and Herzegovina and its associated annexes.

SEC. 2. EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES MILITARY PERSONNEL WHO ARE 
              DEPLOYED.

    The Congress strongly supports the United States military personnel 
who may be ordered by the President to implement the General Framework 
Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and its associated 
annexes.

SEC. 3. TRANSMITTAL OF RESOLUTION.

    The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this 
concurrent resolution to the President.
                                 <all>
```