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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6529 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6529

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to complete a land exchange 
  with the Chugach Regional Alaska Native Corporation, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2016

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to complete a land exchange 
  with the Chugach Regional Alaska Native Corporation, 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 ``Chugach Region Lands Study Act''.

SEC. 2. CHUGACH ALASKA CORPORATION LAND EXCHANGE POOL ACT.

    (a) Definitions.--In this Act:
            (1) CAC.--The term ``CAC'' means Chugach Alaska 
        Corporation.
            (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Alaska.
            (3) CAC lands.--The term ``CAC Lands'' means lands conveyed 
        to CAC pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
        U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) in which--
                    (A) both the surface estate and the subsurface 
                estate were conveyed to CAC; or
                    (B) the subsurface estate was conveyed to CAC and 
                the surface estate or a conservation easement in the 
                surface estate was acquired by the State or by the 
                United States as part of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 
                Trustee Council Habitat Protection and Acquisition 
                Program.
    (b) Identification of Federal Lands.--Not later than 1 year after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior, 
in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture and in consultation 
with Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC), shall identify not less than 
500,000 acres of economically viable Federal land in or outside the 
State of Alaska that can be made available to CAC in exchange for any 
CAC Lands identified by CAC as available to the United States for 
exchange. Any such exchange shall be pursuant to mutual agreement of 
CAC and the United States and consummated in accordance with all 
applicable legal authorizations, except that any acre-for-acre exchange 
of such Federal lands for such CAC Lands shall be conclusively deemed 
to be in the public interest.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
31.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Erik
Odeen, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Form 10-K of Sea 2 Sky Corporation;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;










(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;




(b)
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;




(c)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




(d)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):





(a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and
  (b)  any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and





Date:
December 8, 2009





By: 
/s/Erik
Odeen


Erik
Odeen


Chief
Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0873 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0873

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 873/2003 of 20 May 2003 applying a reduction coefficient to refund certificates for goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, as provided for by Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 **

*
Official Journal L 125 , 21/05/2003 P. 0008 - 0008 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 873/2003

of 20 May 2003

applying a reduction coefficient to refund certificates for goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, as provided for by Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 of 6 December 1993 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2580/2000(2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 of 13 July 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 740/2003(4), and in particular Article 8(5),

Whereas:

(1) The total amount of applications for refund certificates valid from 1 June 2003 exceeds the maximum referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000.

(2) A reduction coefficient shall be calculated on the basis of Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000. Such coefficient should therefore be applied to amounts requested in the form of refund certificates valid from 1 June 2003 as established in Article 8(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The amounts for applications of refund certificates valid from 1 June 2003 are subject to a reduction coefficient of 0,903.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 May 2003.

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

Done at Brussels, 20 May 2003.

For the Commission

Erkki Liikanen

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 318, 20.12.1993, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 298, 25.11.2000, p. 5.

(3) OJ L 177, 15.7.2000, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 106, 29.4.2003, p. 12.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00663- CV
John R. Guerr a, Appellan t

v. Tam m y Miller G uerra, A ppellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 201 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -F M- 09- 0057 75, H ONO RAB LE AMY CLARK MEACH UM, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant J ohn R. Guer

ra has filed a motion to dismiss this appea l. He cer tifies that he has confe rre d with opposing counsel and there is no opposition to the motion. Acc ording ly , we g rant the motion and dismiss the appea l. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) (1).

Appellee Tammy Miller Guer ra also filed a motion to dismiss the appea l. She seeks di s m i ssal for failure to prosec ute and to rec over her costs and all other relief to which she shows herse lf entitled. We g rant her motion to the extent she seeks appellate costs under Rule 43.4 of the R u l es o f Appellate Procedur e. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4. To the extent that she seeks t o re co v er other re lief, we deny

her motion. I n all other re spects, we dismiss her motion as moot.__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Goodwin a nd Field Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Apr il 3, 2015

2
[LETTERHEAD OF BB&T)

February 28, 2007


        MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION ON COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB CRITERIA


Branch  Banking & Trust  Company  (The  "Asserting  Party") is  responsible  for
assessing  compliance  on all prime loans  originated  through BB&T  origination
channels from the 2001 vintage year through the 2006 vintage year  ("Platform"),
as of December 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122 (d) of  Regulation  AB,  excluding  the criteria set forth in
1122(d)(1)(i),    1122(d)(1)(iii),    1122(d)(3)(i)   through    1122(d)(3)(iv),
1122(d)(4)(iii) and 1122(d)(4)(xv),  with the Asserting Party has determined are
not applicable to the servicing  activities  performed by it with respect to the
Platform.   after  giving  effect  to  the  exclusions   identified  above,  the
"Applicable Servicing Criteria").

The  Asserting  Party has  assessed  compliance  with the  Applicable  Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has
complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of
December  31, 2006 and for the  Reporting  Period with  respect to the  Platform
taken as a whole.

PricewaterhouseCoopers  LLP, an independent  registered  public accounting firm,
has issued an attestation  report for BB&T  Mortgage's  assessment of compliance
with the  applicable  servicing  criteria  as of  December  31, 2006 and for the
reporting period as set forth in this assertion.




/s/ Tim Day__________
Mr. Tim Day
Senior Vice President
Mortgage Loan Servicing
Department C8020

Northwest Airlines, Inc.

5101 Northwest Drive

St. Paul, MN 55111-3034

June 15, 2006

Mr. Joe White

Director, Aircraft Systems Engineering

Air Transport Association of America, Inc

1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20004-1707

NORTHWEST AlRUNE5.

Subject: B737, B747, B757, B767, and B777 Static Inverters - Supplemental NPRM

References: ATA Airworthiness Directive Memorandum 06-AD-191

Docket No. 2002-NM-12-AD, May 26, 2006

Dear Mr. White

Northwest Airlines, Inc (NW A) offers the following comments regarding reopening the

comment period for the FAA's new proposed Airworthiness Directive 2002-NM-12-AD

requiring modification of certain static inverters manufactured by Avionic Instruments,

Inc. The proposed AD would be applicable to B737-300, thru -900, B747-400, B757,

B767, and B777 series airplanes and would affect 59 units at NWA.

The comments issued by NWA for the original NPRM Docket No. 2002-NM-12-AD,

June 27, 2002 have been addressed by the FAA. The compliance time was extended from

18 months to 42 months. NW A docs not have any additional comments at this time.

Respectfully,

Gregory L. Budinger

Chief Engineer

ce: John Zawloeki

Russ Fox

Jeff VanderWal

Walt Branz

Steve Terrio

Dec Lee
-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 Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
S. Con. Res. 39 Agreed to January 22, 1996

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concur- ring), That the two Houses of Congress assemble in the Hall of

the House of Representatives on Tuesday, January 23, 1996, at

9 p.m., for the purpose of receiving such communication as the

President of the United States shall be pleased to make to them.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 132

Commending Captain O’Grady and United States and NATO Forces.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 9 (legislative day, JUNE 5), 1995

Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. HELMS, Mr. WARNER, Mr.

COVERDELL, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. PRESSLER, Mr. ROBB,

Mr. PELL, Mr. GRAHAM, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. LEVIN,

Mr. BRYAN, Mr. REID, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. COHEN, Mrs.

KASSEBAUM, Mr. FORD, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BUMPERS,

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. GLENN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. KOHL,

Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. NICKLES, Mr.

GRAMS, and Mr. MURKOWSKI) submitted the following resolution; which

was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Commending Captain O’Grady and United States and NATO

Forces.

Whereas on June 2, 1995, Bosnian Serb forces using sophisticated surface to air missiles shot down a United States

Air Force F–16 aircraft piloted by Captain Scott F.

O’Grady while on combat patrol as part of NATO-commanded Operation Deny Flight;

Whereas in late 1994, reports indicate the United Nations vetoed NATO proposed operations to attack Bosnian Serb

surface to air missile sites;
2

SRES 132 ATS

Whereas effective measures to defend against Bosnian Serb

air defenses did not occur during Captain O’Grady’s mission on June 2, 1995;

Whereas thousands of United States Armed Forces and

armed forces of NATO allies were involved in search operations to recover Captain O’Grady;

Whereas Captain O’Grady, in the finest tradition of American military service, survived for six days and nights

through courage, ingenuity and skill in territory occupied

by hostile Bosnian Serb forces;

Whereas on June 8, 1995, Captain O’Grady was rescued in

a daring operation by United States Marines; and

Whereas aircraft involved in the rescue operation were attacked by Serb forces but no casualties occurred: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

2 (1) Captain O’Grady deserves the respect and

3 admiration of all Americans for his heroic conduct

4 under life-threatening circumstances;

5 (2) the relief and happiness felt by the family

6 of Captain O’Grady is shared by the United States

7 Senate;

8 (3) all members of the United States and

9 NATO armed forces involved in the search and res10 cue operations, in particular the members of the

11 United States Marines Corps involved in the extrac12 tion of Captain O’Grady, are to be commended for

13 their brave efforts and devotion to duty; and
3

SRES 132 ATS

1 (4) United States and NATO air crews should

2 not be put at risk in future operations over Bosnia

3 unless all necessary actions to address the threat

4 posed by hostile Serbian air defenses are taken.

Æ
#### Karl D. HUBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher COULTER, individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55392

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 21, 2017

Karl D. Huber, Pro Se

Daniel Kevin Spradlin, Esquire, Attorney, Roberta A. Kraus, Woodruff, Spradlin *624*&*Smart, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Karl D. Huber appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Newman v. County of Orange,*457 F.3d 991, 993 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Huber’s false arrest claim because it would not have been clear to every reasonable officer that the conduct violated a clearly established right. *See Stanton v. Sims,*— U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 3, 4, 187 L.Ed.2d 341 (2013) (police officer entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Huber’s excessive force claim because defendants’ limited use of force during the course of Huber’s arrest did not violate a clearly established right. *See id.*We therefore do not consider whether the force used during the arrest violated a constitutional right. Further, Huber failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’, use of handcuffs after Huber’s arrest was unreasonable. *See Arpin v. Santa Clam Valley Transp. Agency,*261 F.3d 912, 922 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding summary judgment proper on an excessive force claim where plaintiff failed to provide specific facts that the force used by the application of handcuffs was unreasonable or that she sustained actual injuries).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Huber’s malicious prosecution claim because Huber failed to rebut the presumption that the prosecutor exercised independent judgment in determining that probable cause existed. *See Newman,*457 F.3d at 993-95 (plaintiff bears the burden of rebutting presumption of independent judgment, and “must provide more than an account of the incident in question that conflicts with the account of the officers involved”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Huber’s contention that the district court did not consider his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Roland SPEIGHT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Bernard WARNER, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 16-35137

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 8, 2017 Seattle, Washington *

Filed December 12, 2017

*361Michael Charles Kahrs, Attorney, Kahrs Law Firm, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner-Appellee

John Joseph Samson, Assistant Attorney General, AGWA—Office of the Washington Attorney General (Olympia), Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellant

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Respondent-Appellant Bernard Warner (the State of Washington) appeals the district court’s order granting Petitioner-Ap-pellee Roland Speight’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258, and we reverse.

In federal district court, Speight asserted he received ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal because his appellate counsel failed to raise the argument that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Because this claim was not raised in his personal restraint petition, it was procedurally defaulted. Speight argued that under *Martinez v. Ryan,*566 U.S. 1, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), and this court’s decision in *Van Nguyen v. Curry,*736 F.3d 1287 (9th Cir. 2013), ineffective assistance of his state postconviction counsel constituted cause for the procedural default of his ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim. The district court agreed, granted Speight’s habeas petition, and stayed the writ pending the State’s appeal to this court.

During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court held that ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel cannot provide cause to excuse the procedural default of an ineffective-assistanee-of-appellate-counsel claim. *See Davila v. Davis,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 2058, 2065, 198 L.Ed.2d 603 (2017). As Speight acknowledged in supplemental briefing, *Davila*squarely foreclosed the argument on which the district court relied to grant his habeas petition. To excuse his procedural default absent application of the *Martinez*exception, Speight was required to show cause and prejudice under *Coleman v. Thompson,*501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). Because he has not done so, we must REVERSE the district court order granting Speight’s habeas petition.

REVERSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*362ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
             RALI SERIES 2006-QS17 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director
Exhibit 99.2
 
 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Annual Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10K/A of Pana-Minerales S.A. (the “Company”) for the year ended August 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Hector Francisco Vasquez Davis, Chief Executive Officer, President,
Chief Financial Officer and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 a.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 b.The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 Dated: November 9, 2009
 
 
 HECTOR F. A. DAVIS
 Hector F.A. Davis
 Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief
 Financial Officer and Director
 
 
 
 
 -1-
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74 -73

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/06

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 06 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL