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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 830 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act to reauthorize the predisaster hazard mitigation program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2015 

Mr. CARSON of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to reauthorize the predisaster hazard mitigation program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM. 

4 Section 203(m) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

5 Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 5133(m)) is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(m) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

8 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 830 IH

1 $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 

2 2020.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 07/07 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
#### Kimberly A. REATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1228

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Kimberly A. Reath, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kimberly A. Reath seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing her complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 14, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on February 16, 2017. Because Reath failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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*
Exhibit 10.1

           AMENDMENT TO CARRIER TRANSPORT SWITCHED SERVICES AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT (the "Amendment") is made by SPRINT  COMMUNICATIONS  COMPANY L.P.
("Sprint")  and MATRIX  TELECOM,  INC.  ("Customer"),  to that  certain  Carrier
Transport  Switched  Services  Agreement which was executed on or about April 6,
1998 (the "Agreement"). Sprint and Customer are "Parties" hereto.

In consideration of the mutual promises  contained herein, the Parties amend the
Agreement as follows:

1. The following Attachments,  or parts of an Attachment,  are stricken from the
Agreement in their  entirety.  Each  Attachment,  or part of an  Attachment,  so
stricken  shall be replaced as part of the Agreement with the attachment to this
Amendment that bears the same title or heading.

     Attachment A shall be amended by adding the following paragraphs:

     SEPARATE PRODUCT HIERARCHY

     The  entire  Attachment  C-1 (a) shall be added to the  executed  contract.
Attachment C-1(a) is applicable only to all domestic  interstate  traffic of new
ANI's only. All international  and interstate  traffic shall be priced according
to the contract rates contained on Attachments C-16a-g and D-1a, respectively.

     Attachment  C-1a shall be added to the  Agreement in its  entirety,  and is
applicable for all domestic interstate traffic of new ANI's only.
     Attachment  C-16a-g shall be added to the Agreement in their entirety,  and
is applicable for all international traffic of new ANI's only.
     Attachment  D-1a shall be added to the  Agreement in its  entirety,  and is
applicable for all domestic intrastate traffic of new ANI's only.

2. Effective upon execution by Matrix Telecom.

3. All other terms and conditions of this  Agreement  shall remain in full force
and effect.

4. Sprint's offer to amend the Agreement shall be withdrawn if this Amendment is
not executed by both Parties within 45 days after October 14, 1998.

EXECUTED and made effective as provided herein.


MATRIX TELECOM, INC.                        SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P.

By:    ------------------------             By:    --------------------------

Title: ------------------------             Title: --------------------------

Date:  ------------------------             Date:  --------------------------
# L_2006414EN.01S00301.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 414/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 414/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

From 1 January 2007, the structure of the Official Journal will be modified in the direction of a clearer classification of the acts published which preserves, nevertheless, essential continuity.

The new structure, with examples illustrating its use in the classification of acts, can be consulted on the EUR-Lex site on the following address:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm

---
#### IN RE: Shaheen CABBAGESTALK, Petitioner.

No. 17-1913

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 27, 2017

Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior .Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shaheen Cabbagestalk petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing his immediate release from custody after a state conviction for armed robbery and also directing the United States Supreme Court to file his petition for writ of certiorari. We conclude that Cabbagestalk 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). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). This court also does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, *Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cty.,*411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969) (per curiam), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, *Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).

The relief sought by Cabbagestalk is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition and supplemental petitions for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be*190fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITIONS DENIED*
Exhibit 8.1

List of Subsidiaries



|1. | Melco PBL Holdings Limited, incorporated in Cayman Islands
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Melco PBL International Limited, incorporated in Cayman Islands
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Melco PBL Gaming (Macau) Limited, incorporated in Macau Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | Melco PBL Investments Limited, incorporated in Cayman Islands
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------



|5. | Great Wonders, Investments, Limited, incorporated in Macau Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|6. | Melco Hotels and Resorts (Macau) Limited, incorporated in Macau Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|7. | Melco PBL (Macau Peninsula) Limited, incorporated in British Virgin Islands
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



|8. | Melco PBL Entertainment (Greater China) Limited, incorporated in Cayman Islands (Dormant)
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|9. | Mocha Slot Group Limited, incorporated in British Virgin Islands
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------



|10. | Mocha Slot Management Limited, incorporated in Macau Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|11. | Mocha Slot Café Limited, incorporated in Macau Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|12. | Melco PBL Hotel (Crown Macau) Limited, incorporated in Macau Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|13. | Melco PBL Services Limited, incorporated in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|14. | Always Prosper Investments Limited, incorporated in British Virgin Islands (Dormant)
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Martin , Michae l (OST) CbT-OSX - Qopg ^ - WHM : C

o From : scma01@atlanticbbn.ne t 1 Sent : Thursday , Apri l 22,201 0 5:2 4 PIVI - - ; To : EAS(OST ) : ^ Cc : dpdilling@cfaith.co m Subject : Colga n Ai rServic e a t AO O (Martinsburg/Altoona , PA Gentlemen : ;E l S A s a weekl ytravele rint o an d ou t o fAOO , pleas e allo wm e t o expres s m ypleasur e wit h an d endorsemen t o fColga n Air
. I fin d th e folk s a t Colga n Ai rt o b e bot h professiona l an d pleasant
. I hav e foun d the m t o b e significantl ysuperio rt o othe r commute rairline s wit h who m I hav e flow n ove rth e years . No wI understan d tha t th e contrac t wit h Colga n Ai ri s u p fo rrenewal
. I eagerl yendors e Colga n Ai ri n thi s matte ran d humbl yas k

tha t th e contrac t wit h the m b e extended
. Than k you . Sincerely , Duan e P
. Dillin g
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sensata Technologies B.V. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned
chief executive officer, chief financial officer and chief accounting officer of the Company, certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Act of 1934; and

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



|                        
|------------------------
|/S/    THOMAS
WROE      
|Thomas Wroe             
|Chief Executive Officer 
|                        
|Date: January 28, 2010  
|                        
|/S/    JEFFREY
COTE     
|Jeffrey Cote            
|Chief Financial Officer 
|                        
|Date: January 28, 2010  
|                        
|/S/    ROBERT
HUREAU    
|Robert Hureau           
|Chief Accounting Officer
|                        
|Date: January 28, 2010
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Antony, 136 Ohio St.3d 1223, 2013-Ohio-2625.]

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v. A NTONY . [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Antony, 136 Ohio St.3d 1223, 2013-Ohio-2625.] (No. 2012-1181

— Submitted June 18, 2013

— Decided June 25, 2013.)
O N A PPLICATION FOR R EINSTATEMENT

.

____________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement on Februa ry 20, 2013, by respondent, John Peter Antony, Attorney Registration No. 0043520, last known business address in Highland Heights, Kentucky. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of September 6, 2012, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4), suspended respondent for a period of 90 days and ordered that he will not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until he is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Florida, finds that respondent has substantially complied w ith that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). {¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this cour t that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio. It is further ordered that respondent’s second application for reinstatem ent filed April 15, 2013, is moot. {¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      13,667,403
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  909,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                    85,729
<INVENTORY>                                 16,666,358
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,814,683
<PP&E>                                      12,164,842
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,934,255
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,206,002
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        81,762
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,324,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,934,255
<SALES>                                     20,021,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,454,959
<CGS>                                       13,755,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,081,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,493,643
<INCOME-TAX>                                   596,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            897,143
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   897,143
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 995 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 995

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to restrict payment of a 
clothing allowance to incarcerated veterans and to create a presumption 
  of permanent and total disability for pension purposes for certain 
              veterans who are patients in a nursing home.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 29 (legislative day, June 19), 1995

Mr. Simpson (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to restrict payment of a 
clothing allowance to incarcerated veterans and to create a presumption 
  of permanent and total disability for pension purposes for certain 
              veterans who are patients in a nursing home.
    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 ``Veterans' Benefits Reform Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. CLOTHING ALLOWANCE FOR INCARCERATED VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 53 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 5313 the following new section:
``Sec. 5313A. Limitation on payment of clothing allowance to 
              incarcerated veterans
    ``In the case of a veteran incarcerated in a Federal, State, or 
local penal institution for a period in excess of sixty days and 
furnished clothing without charge by the institution, the amount of any 
clothing allowance payable to such veteran under section 1162 of this 
title shall be reduced on a pro rata basis for each day on which the 
veteran was so incarcerated during the twelve-month period preceding 
the date on which payment of the allowance would be under regulations 
promulgated by the Secretary.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
5313 the following new item:

``5313A.  Limitation on payment of clothing allowance to incarcerated 
                            veterans.''
SEC. 3. PRESUMPTION OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY FOR CERTAIN VETERANS 
              WHO ARE NURSING-HOME PATIENTS.

    Section 1502(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``is 65 years of age or older and a patient in a nursing home 
or, regardless of age,'' after ``such a person''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zacarias MONCIVAIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-41598 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 27, 2017

*384Jimmy Eric Pardue, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Zacarías Moncivais, Pro Se

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Zacarías Moncivais, federal prisoner #42255-279, seeks to proceed *in forma pauperis*(“IFP”) on appeal of the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. After implicitly determining that Moncivais was eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction, the district court denied the motion based on its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including Moncivais’s criminal history and the seriousness of the instant offense. *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010):

By moving to proceed IFP in this court, Moncivais challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal is not in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

We review the denial of Moncivais’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). At most, Monci-vais merely expresses his disagreement with the balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, which is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. *See id.*

Moncivais has failed to demonstrate that his appeal involves legal points that are not frivolous. *See Howard,*707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Moncivais’s motions for appointment of counsel and for leave to file an amended brief are DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00243-CR

____________________

MARRON DOUGLAS RITCHEY JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 411th District Court

San Jacinto County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 10,496

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellant, Marron Douglas Ritchey Jr., attempts to appeal the trial court’s 

failure to rule on Ritchey’s post-conviction motion for DNA testing. On July 18, 

2018, we notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed unless by August 2, 

2018, we received a response that establishes that an appealable order has been 

signed. The deadline has passed without any party having demonstrated that an 

appealable order has been signed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). 
2

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice

 

Submitted on August 28, 2018

Opinion Delivered August 29, 2018

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.