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

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6425 

To provide the force and effect of law for certain regulations relating to 

the taking of double-crested cormorants to reduce depredation at aquaculture facilities and protect public resources. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2016 

Mr. CRAWFORD (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. SEWELL of 

Alabama, Mr. HARPER, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. WESTERMAN, Mr. HILL, Mr. 

WOMACK, and Mr. ADERHOLT) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide the force and effect of law for certain regulations 

relating to the taking of double-crested cormorants to 

reduce depredation at aquaculture facilities and protect 

public resources. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safeguard Aquaculture 

5 Farmers Act’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6425 IH

1 SEC. 2. REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE TAKING OF DOU2 BLE-CRESTED CORMORANTS. 

3 (a) FORCE AND EFFECT.— 

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), 

5 section 21.47 of title 50, Code of Federal Regula6 tions (as in effect on the date of enactment of this 

7 Act) shall have the force and effect of law. 

8 (2) PUBLIC NOTICE.—The Secretary of the In9 terior (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Sec10 retary’’), acting through the Director of the United 

11 States Fish and Wildlife Service (referred to in this 

12 section as the ‘‘Director’’), shall notify the public of 

13 the authority provided by paragraph (1) in a manner 

14 determined appropriate by the Secretary. 

15 (b) SUNSET.—The authority provided by subsection 

16 (a)(1) shall terminate on the date that is the earlier of— 

17 (1) the effective date of a regulation promul18 gated by the Director after the date of enactment of 

19 this Act to control depredation of double-crested cor20 morant populations; or 

21 (2) 1 year after the date of enactment of this 

22 Act. 

23 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec24 tion limits the authority of the Director to promulgate regVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:46 Dec 02, 2016 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6425.IH H6425

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6425 IH

1 ulations relating to the taking of double-crested cor2 morants under any other law. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

Filed 12/ 7/21 P. v . Banks CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----
THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBBIE BANKS,

Defendant and Appellant. C093571

(Super. Ct. No. 98F10219 )

In 2001, a jury found defendant Robbie Banks guilty of second degree murder and
found true she personally used a knife and had a prior serious felony. On June 1, 2001, the

trial court senten ced defendant to 30 years to life for the murder, one year for the weapon
enhancement, and five years for the prior serious felony

, for a total term of 30 years to life plus
six years.
On March 6, 2020, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Pe nal Code section
1170.95, alleging she is eligible for resentencing because she was not the actual killer. After
briefing by the parties

, the trial court denied the petition finding the “jury was not instructed on
either felony

- murder or the natural and p robable consequences doctrine of accomplice liability.”

DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history
of the case and requests this court review the record and determine whether there are any2

arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436.) Defendant was advised
by counsel of h er right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening
brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental

brief.
Whether the protections afforded by Wende and the United States Supreme Court’s

decision in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed.2d 493] apply to an appeal from
an order denying a postconviction petition is an open question. Our Supreme Court has not
spoken on that issue, although the issue is currently pending before i t. ( People v. Delgadillo

, review granted Feb. 17, 2021, S266305.) In Figueras , we described the Anders / Wende
procedure we believed applicable to appeals from postconviction petitions : “ ‘[C]ounsel
appointed in such appeals is required to independently r eview the entire record and, if counsel so finds, file a brief advising the appellate court that there are “no arguable issues to raise on
appeal”; [counsel must inform] the defendant [that he or she] has a right to file a supplemental
brief [within 30 day s of the filing of counsel’s brief]; and this court has the duty to address any
issues raised by the defendant but otherwise may dismiss the appeal without conducting an independent review of the record.’ ” ( People v. Figueras (2021) 61 Cal. App.5th 108, 1 12

- 113

, review granted May 12, 2021, S267870 .)

W e consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order the appeal dismissed

. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.

/s/ Robie, J. We concur:

/s/ Raye, P. J.

/s/ Hull, J.
CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   We
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 30, 2009 on
the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the
related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007
and 2006, included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statement Form S-8 (File No. 333-152554).
   /s/
Stonefield Josephson, Inc.
 CERTIFIED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
  Wanchai,
Hong Kong
 March 31,
2009
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 690 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 690

   To require each agency, in providing notice of a rule making, to 
  include a link to a 100 word plain language summary of the proposed 
                                 rule.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2015

 Mr. Luetkemeyer (for himself and Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require each agency, in providing notice of a rule making, to 
  include a link to a 100 word plain language summary of the proposed 
                                 rule.

    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 ``Providing Accountability Through 
Transparency Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO POST A 100 WORD SUMMARY TO REGULATIONS.GOV.

    Section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``; and'' and inserting 
        ``;'';
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) the internet address of a summary of not more than 
        100 words in length of the proposed rule, in plain language, 
        that shall be posted on the internet website under section 
        206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) 
        (commonly known as regulations.gov);''.
                                 <all>
```
Non-confidential 2006 IUR Records by Chemical, 

including Manufacturing, Processing and Use 

Information 

Search Results 

CAS: 629-14-1 

Chemical Name: Ethane, 1,2-diethoxyAggregated National Production Volume: < 500,000 lbs 

National Chemical Information *

Production Volume (aggregated): < 500,000 lbs 

Maximum Concentration (at Manufacture or Import 

site): Greater than 90% 

Physical Form(s): Liquid 

Number of Manufacturing, Processing, and Use Sites 

(aggregated)**: 1 to 99 

Number of Reasonably Likely to be Exposed Industrial 

Manufacturing, Processing and Use Workers 

(aggregated)**:

1 to 99 

Was Industrial Processing or Use Information 

Reported? No 

Was Commercial or Consumer Use Information 

Reported? No 

*

CBI - Confidential Business Information 

N/A - Not Applicable 

NRO - Not Readily Obtainable 

**NOTE: Data may be greatly underestimated. Please see Overview of 2006 TSCA Inventory Update 

Reporting (PDF) (3 pp, 51K, About PDF) for more detail.
#### Benedict EMESOWUM, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo CRUZ; Kiet To, Defendants-Appellants

No. 17-20245

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 11, 2018

Benedict Emesowum, Pro Se

Robert William Higgason, Nelita Neves Hatch, City of Houston, Legal Department, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellants

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: *

Benedict Emesowum sued the City of Houston, its police chief Charles A, *215McClelland, and Officers Eduardo Cruz and Kiet To for constitutional violations and state law torts allegedly arising out of Emesowum’s 2015 arrest in a Houston parking lot. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The district court granted the motion as to Emeso-wum’s claims against the City and Chief McClelland, and as to Emesowum’s state law claims against Officers Cruz and To. But the court denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity as to Emesowum’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. The officers appeal.

I.

“The denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” *Melton v. Phillips,*875 F.3d 256, 261 (5th Cir. 2017) (én banc) (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, although we may review whether a fact issue is *material*to the qualified immúnity analysis, we lack jurisdiction to consider whether a factual dispute is *genuine. Id.*In its order denying summary judgment, the district court held that “the evidence creates a disputed fact issue concerning [the officers’] entitlement to qualified immunity.” But the court declined to specify what facts create the issue.

When the district court denies a motion based on qualified immunity “simply because ‘fact issues’ remain, this Court has two choices. We can either scour the record and determine what facts the plaintiff may be able to prove at trial and proceed to resolve the legal issues, or remand so that the trial court can clarify the order.” *Manis v. Lawson,*585 F.3d 839, 843 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting *Thompson v. Upshur Cty., TX,*245 F.3d 447, 456 (5th Cir. 2001)). In this case, it is unclear from the record what facts the district court identified as disputed. We therefore conclude that a limited remand is the “more efficient alternative” here. *Castillo v. City of Weslaco,*369 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 2004) (remanding appeal from denial of motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity for additional fact finding); *White v. Balderama,*153 F.3d 237, 242 (5th Cir. 1998) (same).

II.

We REMAND to the district court with instructions that, within ninety days after the entry of this remand, it provide a supplemental order setting forth the factual scenario relevant to Officers Cruz and To’s motion for summary judgment. We retain jurisdiction over this appeal.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *215published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 04, 2016. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 04, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0172. DANIEL MADDOX, JR. v. ATLANTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL SYSTEM et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2014CV243078
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 107

To commend the Huskies of the University of Connecticut for capping a

perfect season by winning the 1995 NCAA Women’s Basketball Championship.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 6 (legislative day, APRIL 5), 1995

Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN) submitted the following

resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To commend the Huskies of the University of Connecticut

for capping a perfect season by winning the 1995 NCAA

Women’s Basketball Championship.

Whereas UConn women’s team won the school’s first-ever national basketball championship by defeating the University of Tennessee by the score of 70–64;

Whereas the UConn Huskies became only the second women’s basketball team in NCAA history to finish the season undefeated, and the first basketball team of any kind

in NCAA history to finish 35–0;

Whereas UConn Head Coach Geno Auriemma was the recipient of the Naismith National Coach of the Year Award,

as well as the Associated Press Coach of the Year and
2

SRES 107 ATS

the United States Basketball Writers Association Coach

of the Year awards;

Whereas UConn forward and co-captain Rebecca Lobo was

the consensus choice of those same organizations as the

National Player of the Year, and was named the Most

Outstanding Player of the NCAA Women’s Final Four;

Whereas Rebecca Lobo was also named the GTE Women’s

Basketball National Academic All-American of the Year

for her outstanding achievement in the classroom;

Whereas the UConn Women Huskies enthralled the entire

State of Connecticut, providing it with one of its finest

moments; and

Whereas the UConn Women Huskies elevated the sport of

women’s basketball to new heights, and inspired a generation of young girls in Connecticut to aspire toward

their own ‘‘hoop dreams’’: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate commends the Huskies of

2 the University of Connecticut for capping a perfect season

3 by winning the 1995 NCAA Women’s Basketball Cham4 pionship.

Æ
#### IN RE: Celeste G. BROUGHTON, a/k/a Celeste Gold Broughton, Petitioner.

No. 17-1593

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Celeste G. Broughton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Celeste G. Broughton petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to cancel a scheduled hearing and hold a jury trial, and compelling recusal of the district court judge. We conclude that Broughton is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Here, the district court granted Brough-ton’s motion to cancel the hearing and transferred the case to a different district court judge. Therefore, Broughton’s request for a writ of mandamus regarding those issues is moot.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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*
|         (i)   | the accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        (ii)  |  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |   |                                                                             |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  December 15, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Michael L. Krall                                                             |   |
|                          |   | Michael L. KrallPresident / Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TiQuan SAVARY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7468

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

TiQuan Savary, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Kosky, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

TiQuan Savary seeks to appeal the district court’s, order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2263(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 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 Savary has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT IN RE: THE ESTATE OF PERRY M. MCKEAN, DECEASED, JUNE L. CONFER, ADMINISTRATRIX
PETITION OF: LARRY HAINES : : : : : : : : No. 683 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 17th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED .
#### MINGYU DU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-71876

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Mingyu Du, Pro Se

OIL, Jennifer A. Singer, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office , of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE,. Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of *606Homeland 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 **

Mingyu Du, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 protection 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, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Du’s testimony and documentary evidence as to the reason he lost his job in China, whether the police informed him how long he would be detained, and his intention to travel outside of China prior to his arrest. *See id.*at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Du’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Du’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Du’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Du does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of China. *Id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned executive officers of Mayflower Bancorp, Inc. (the Registrant) hereby certify that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By:

/s/ Edward M. PrattName:

Edward M. PrattTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Maria VafiadesName:

Maria VafiadesTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


Date: July 7, 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0718 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. LUCAS JAMES RICHESON,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 3 0 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

September 24 2024

09/24/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0718