alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EPA Reg. No. 524-522

Vol. 2 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74

*Personal privacy information*
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
*Personal privacy information*

*Pages 228-329 - Access to FIFRA Registration Data is restricted under FIFRA section 10(g)*

*Pages 228-329 - Access to FIFRA Registration Data is restricted under FIFRA section 10(g)*
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 45

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the rotunda of the United States Cap3 itol is hereby authorized to be used on May 2, 1996, at

4 2 o’clock post meridian for the presentation of the Con5 gressional Gold Medal to Reverend and Mrs. Billy Gra6 ham. Physical preparations for the conduct of the cere7 mony shall be carried out in accordance with such condi8 tions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol.

Passed the Senate March 12, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 45

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Rotunda on May

Graham.sional Gold Medal to Reverend and Mrs. Billy2, 1996, for the presentation of the Congres-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Louis CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7165

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

Brian Louis Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Ellen Elisabeth Cobb, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian Louis Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely filed. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 motion 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 Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Clark’s motion for a certificate of appealability 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*
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0787. W. BONNEAU ANSLEY, JR., ET AL. v. BRANCH BANKING

AND TRUST COMPANY.

Upon consideration and review, the Appellants’ Motion to Remand, is hereby

GRANTED and the case is remanded to the trial court with direction to allow the

parties to supplement the record with evidence of a foreclosure sale that occurred on

December 6, 2016 and to direct the trial court to rule upon the effect that sale may

have upon its judgment that is the subject of this appeal. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

March 28, 2017

03/28/2017
#### Frank HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RIVERSIDE BUILDERS, INC., Esteban Espinoza, Defendants-Appellees, Federico, Defendant.

No. 17-1466-cv

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 20, 2017

FOR APPELLANT: Frank Hernandez, pro se, New York, NY.

*52FOR APPELLEES: Robert Jay Gu-menick, Robert J. Gumenick, P.C., New York, NY.

PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges, EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge.*

*

 Judge Edward R. Korman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Frank Hernandez, jaro se, appeals from the District Court’s August 22, 2016 order of dismissal on consent and its April 28, 2017 endorsement denying his request to vacate the settlement agreement and order of dismissal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of the prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to dismiss in part and affirm in part.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction to the extent that Hernandez attempts to challenge the consent order of dismissal. Hernandez’s May 2017 appeal is untimely to challenge that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (7)(A); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”). Moreover, unless a party unequivocally reserves the right to appeal, which Hernandez did not do, “[ajppeal from a consent judgment is ... unavailable on the ground that the parties are deemed to have waived any objections to matters within the scope of the judgment.” LaForest v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., 569 F.3d 69, 73 (2d Cir. 2009).

We otherwise liberally construe Hernandez’s filings in the District Court and his arguments on appeal, see Harris v. Miller, 818 F.3d 49, 56 (2d Cir. 2016), and we conclude that the appeal is timely to the extent that Hernandez challenges the District Court’s April 2017 endorsement of the settlement agreement between the parties. We construe that endorsement as the denial of a request to vacate the settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which we review for abuse of discretion. See Manning v. N.Y. Univ., 299 F.3d 156, 162 (2d Cir. 2002). We identify no abuse of discretion here. Even when liberally construed, neither Hernandez’s filings in the District Court nor his briefs on appeal point to any legal or factual basis for vacating the settlement, such as a violation of the settlement agreement or misconduct by the defendants. Hernandez alleges only that there are continuing consequences arising from the termination that was the subject of his original complaint. Those consequences are covered by the settlement and are not subject to appeal. See LaForest, 569 F.3d at 73.

We have considered Hernandez’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction, and the District Court’s order declining to vacate the settlement agreement is AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0409

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

HOLLY ANNE MATHIS,

a.k.a. HOLLY ANNE NORLING,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until January 8, 2021, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

December 2 2020

12/02/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0409
#### Martinez AYTCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. CARPENTER, RN, Dons; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16157

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

April 24, 2017

Martinez Aytch, Pro Se

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Martinez Aytch appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We vacate and remand.

The district court screened and dismissed Aytch’s action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, finding that Aytch filed the complaint before he received a response to his first level grievance. However, Aytch alleged that the prison failed to respond to his informal grievances and that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. *See Sapp v. Kimbrell,*623 F.3d 813, 826 (9th Cir. 2010) (PLRA does not require exhaustion when remedies are “effectively unavailable”); *Brown v. Valoff,*422 F.3d 926, 943 n.18 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Delay in responding to a grievance, particularly a time-sensitive one, may demonstrate that no administrative process is in fact available.”). Because the district court did not address whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to Aytch, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0000165 03-SEP-2014 08:13 AM

SCWC-13-0000165 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
IN THE INTEREST OF PP, a minor

Date of Birth: May 29, 1996

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0000165; FC-J NO. 0093930) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack and Wilson, JJ.) Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaii’s Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on July 23, 2014, is hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, September 3, 2014. Sonja P. McCullen for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of FFD Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Trent B. Troyer, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.




/s/ Trent B. Troyer
------------------------------------
Trent B. Troyer
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0122 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0122

**2003/122/EC: Commission Decision of 21 February 2003 authorising Member States to take decisions under Directive 1999/105/EC on forest reproductive material produced in third countries (notified under document number C(2003) 580) **

*
Official Journal L 049 , 22/02/2003 P. 0015 - 0020 *

Commission Decision

of 21 February 2003

authorising Member States to take decisions under Directive 1999/105/EC on forest reproductive material produced in third countries

(notified under document number C(2003) 580)

(2003/122/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Council Directive 1999/105/EC of 22 December 1999 on the marketing of forest reproductive material(1), and in particular Article 19(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Pursuant to Article 19(1) of Directive 1999/105/EC, the Council on a proposal from the Commission is to determine whether forest reproductive material produced in a third country affords the same assurances as regards the approval of its basic material and the measures taken for its production with a view to marketing as does forest reproductive material produced within the Community and complying with the provisions of that Directive.

(2) However, the information presently available on the conditions applying in third countries is still not sufficient to enable the Community to make any such decision in respect of any third country.

(3) Therefore, in order to prevent trade patterns from being disrupted, Member States should be authorised to take such decisions. Such authorisation aims to ensure that the material imported offers equivalent guarantees to those applicable to forest reproductive material produced in the Community in accordance with that Directive.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Member States are authorised to take decisions under Article 19(3) of Directive 1999/105/EC with regard to forest reproductive material produced in third countries listed in the Annex, and in respect of the species, types of basic material and categories set out therein.

Article 2

Member States shall immediately notify the Commission and other Member States of the decisions taken pursuant to this Decision, and of any withdrawal of such decisions.

Article 3

The authorisation provided for in Article 1 shall expire on 31 December 2005.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 February 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 11, 15.1.2000, p. 17.

ANNEX

>TABLE>

Legend:

Category

SI Source identified

Q Qualified

T Tested

Type of basic material

SS Seed source

St Stand

SO Seed orchard

PF Parents of family
# EUR-Lex - 32002R1291 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R1291

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2002 of 16 July 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 21/2002 establishing the supply balances and Community aid for the outermost regions under Council Regulations (EC) Nos 1452/2001, 1453/2001 and 1454/2001 with regard to eggs, poultry and rabbit sector for the Canary Islands **

*
Official Journal L 188 , 17/07/2002 P. 0003 - 0004 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2002

of 16 July 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 21/2002 establishing the supply balances and Community aid for the outermost regions under Council Regulations (EC) Nos 1452/2001, 1453/2001 and 1454/2001 with regard to eggs, poultry and rabbit sector for the Canary Islands

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1454/2001 of 28 June 2001 introducing specific measures for certain agricultural products for the Canary Islands and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 (Poseican)(1), amended by Regulation (EC) No 1195/2002(2), and in particular Article 3(6) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 21/2002(3), as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 679/2002(4), establishes the supply balances and Community aid for the outermost regions under Council Regulations (EC) Nos 1452/2001(5), 1453/2001(6) and 1454/2001.

(2) Evidence shows that the quantities of grandparent and parent female chicks provided in Annex III(11), (CN code ex 0105 11 ) are not used due to the fact that the aid has not been sufficient to compensate the relatively high transport costs. It is therefore necessary to increase the aid.

(3) For the purpose of setting the aid for supply to the Canary Islands of the products listed in Annex III(11) and in the interests of simplification, there should be a permanent reference to the Regulations fixing the export refund for similar products whenever such refunds are granted.

(4) Regulation (EC) No 21/2002 should be amended accordingly.

(5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the meeting of the Management Committee poultrymeat and eggs,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex III (Canary Islands) to Regulation (EC) No 21/2002 is amended as follows:

- Part 11 is replaced by the following: "Part 11

Eggs, poultry, rabbits

Forecast supply balance and Community aid for the supply of Community products per calendar year

>TABLE>"

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 16 July 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 198, 21.7.2001, p. 45.

(2) OJ L 174, 4.7.2002, p. 11.

(3) OJ L 8, 11.1.2002, p. 15.

(4) OJ L 104, 20.4.2002, p. 6.

(5) OJ L 198, 21.7.2001, p. 11.

(6) OJ L 198, 21.7.2001, p. 26.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


As independent auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report
included in this Form 20-F, into WPP Group plc's previously filed Registration
Statements on Form S-8, File No. 33-33906, File No. 333-4302, File No. 333-5368,
File No. 333-6378 and File No. 333-40516.





London, England                                                Arthur Andersen
June 13, 2002
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 34

To authorize the printing of ‘‘Vice Presidents of the United States,

1789–1993’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 6, 1995

Mr. BYRD submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Rules and Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To authorize the printing of ‘‘Vice Presidents of the United

States, 1789–1993’’.

Whereas the United States Constitution provides that the

Vice President of the United States shall serve as President of the Senate; and

Whereas the careers of the 44 Americans who held that post

during the years 1789 through 1993 richly illustrate the

development of the nation and its government; and

Whereas the vice presidency, traditionally the least understood and most often ignored constitutional office in the

Federal Government, deserves wider attention: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring),
2

•SCON 34 IS

1 SECTION 1. PRINTING OF THE ‘‘VICE PRESIDENTS OF THE

2 UNITED STATES, 1789–1993’’.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—There shall be printed as a Senate

4 document the book entitled ‘‘Vice Presidents of the United

5 States, 1789–1993’’, prepared by the Senate Historical

6 Office under the supervision of the Secretary of the Sen7 ate.

8 (b) SPECIFICATIONS.—The Senate document de9 scribed in subsection (a) shall include illustrations and

10 shall be in the style, form, manner, and binding as di11 rected by the Joint Committee on Printing after consulta12 tion with the Secretary of the Senate.

13 (c) NUMBER OF COPIES.—In addition to the usual

14 number of copies, there shall be printed with suitable bind15 ing the lesser of—

16 (1) 1,000 copies (750 paper bound and 250

17 case bound) for the use of the Senate, to be allo18 cated as determined by the Secretary of the Senate;

19 and

20 (2) a number of copies that does not have a

21 total production and printing cost of more than

22 $11,100.

Æ
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 102

To express the sense of the Senate concerning Pakistan and the impending

visit of Prime Minister Bhutto.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 4 (legislative day, MARCH 27), 1995

Mr. BROWN (for himself, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HELMS, and

Mr. PELL) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate concerning Pakistan

and the impending visit of Prime Minister Bhutto.

Whereas Pakistan and the United States have been allies

since 1947, and throughout the difficult days of the Cold

War;

Whereas Pakistan was a front-line state against Soviet totalitarian expansionism and worked with the United States

to successfully end the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan;

Whereas Pakistan has been in the forefront of United Nations peacekeeping operations, recently being the largest

contributor of forces to United Nations peacekeeping operations;

Whereas Pakistan has cooperated with the United States in

the apprehension and swift extradition of Ramzi Ahmed
2

SRES 102 IS

Yousef, the alleged mastermind of the terrorist attack on

the World Trade Center in New York City;

Whereas Pakistan’s economy is being increasingly liberalized

and opened to outside investors and businesses;

Whereas there are increasing opportunities for economic cooperation between Pakistan and the United States as a

result of private sector agreements for investment in

Pakistan’s energy sector and other pending agreements;

and

Whereas Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who has worked to

strengthen Pakistan’s close relationship with the United

States, was reelected to office in October, 1993, and is

scheduled to visit the United States on an official visit

in April: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the United States Senate—

2 (1) welcomes the visit of Prime Minister

3 Benazir Bhutto to the United States as a sign of the

4 warm, enduring friendship between the United

5 States and Pakistan; and

6 (2) pledges to work with the Government of

7 Pakistan to strengthen the United States-Pakistan

8 relationship in the years ahead.

Æ
#### Asa Beach, Appellant, *v.*Nathan Harrington, Respondent.

(Submitted April 17, 1872;

decided April 23, 1872.)

*664*Chapman <& Martin*for the appellant.

*McDowell c& Edwards*for the Respondent.

Agree to affirm. No opinion.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.