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

DATE: November 3, 2014 TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: Anna Phillips , EPA/OI TA SUBJECT: October 30 , 2014 Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing

Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on October 30, 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2 , 2014
. **A TTENDEES**  Ms. Malgorzata Kaluzy

nska Director, Department of EU Economics Polish Ministry

of Foreign Affairs Rafal Jarosz Embassy of Poland Katarzy na Czop Embassy of Poland
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16217-16218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06006]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-3462]


Verification Systems Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act for 
Certain Prescription Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS).

[[Page 16218]]


ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice 
entitled ``Verification Systems Under the Drug Supply Chain Security 
Act for Certain Prescription Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry'' that 
appeared in the Federal Register of March 10, 2022. The document 
omitted the date by which comments on the draft guidance should be 
submitted to FDA. This error is corrected in this document for clarity.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Venti, Office of Compliance, 
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3130, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f490868193808695979f959a908086959791b4929095da9c9c87da939b82"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7612040311020417151d171812020417151336101217581e1e0558111900">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 10, 2022 
(87 FR 13738), appearing on page 13738, in FR Doc. 2022-05018, in the 
second column, the DATES section is corrected to read as follows:

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal 
Register on March 10, 2022. Although you can comment on any guidance at 
any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers 
your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final 
version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments 
on the draft guidance by May 9, 2022.

    Dated: March 17, 2022.
Andi Lipstein Fristedt,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Legislation, and International Affairs, 
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-06006 Filed 3-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Manuel Salvador TRUJILLO-BARDALAS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-71205

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 28, 2017

Manuel Salvador Trujillo-Bardalas, Pro Se

Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Kristin Moresi, Elizabeth Robyn Chapman, Trial Attorneys, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

*405Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Manuel Salvador Trujillo-Bardalas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

We do not consider the new documents submitted as attachments to Trujillo-Bar-dalas’ opening brief. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Trujillo-Bardalas failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected ground. *See Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members has no nexus to a protected ground). Thus, Trujillo-Bardalas’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Trujillo-Bardalas failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. *See Aden v. Holder,*589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 56 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 56

    Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-
 favored-nation treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of 
                                 China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 1996

    Mr. Helms (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Smith) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-
 favored-nation treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of 
                                 China.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress does not 
approve the extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of 
the Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the Congress on 
May 31, 1996, with respect to the People's Republic of China.
                                 <all>
```
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 17 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
VIRGIL WAYNE BRADFORD,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 98-6095
v. (D.C. No. CIV-97-1499-L) RON WARD, (W.D. Okla.)

Respondent - Appellee.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining Petitioner-Appellant’s brief and th e appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. Petitioner, appearing pro se , asks this court to grant him a certificate of appealability, thereby allowing him to appeal the d istrict court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We may issue a certific ate of appealability only when-2-

the applicant makes a “substantial showing of the d enial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner’s Application for Certificate of Appealability asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evide nce because the evidence was seized during a search which violated his constitut ional rights. Petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this claim in the state courts and is, therefore, precluded from bringing a claim for habeas corpus r elief based on this assertion. See Stone v. Powell , 428 U.S. 465, 482 (1976); Miranda v. Cooper , 967 F.2d 392, 401 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 924 (1992). Petitioner also alleges that he is entitled to a ce rtificate of appealability because he was denied the right to effective assist ance of counsel. Petitioner did not assert this claim in his original petition for habeas corpus relief. Issues not raised in the district court may not be considered by this court on appeal absent extraordinary circumstances. See Smith v. Secretary of N.M. Dep’t of Corrections , 50 F.3d 801, 814 n.22 (10th Cir.), cert. deniedsub nom. Mondragon v. Smith , 516 U.S. 905 (1995). Because this case does not involve extraordinary circumstances justifying a departure from this rule , we do not address Petitioner’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of co unsel. Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showi ng of the denial of a constitutional right, his application for a certifi cate of appealability is DENIED ,-3-

and the district court’s denial of habeas relief is AFFIRMED
. Entered for the Court Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30440

Summary Calendar

WILMER DIXON, III

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LYNN COOPER; JANE DOE, Nurse of Avoyelles Correctional Center in her

individual and official capacity

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:06-CV-2330

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wilmer Dixon, federal prisoner # 29334-034, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit

complaining that he was denied medical care for needle-like pain he experienced

while temporarily housed in a Louisiana state correctional facility, Avoyelles

Correctional Center, shortly after Hurricane Katrina. The district court

dismissed Dixon’s suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)

concluding, in part, that Dixon’s claim was untimely filed. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 28, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30440

2

Dixon argues that, under Louisiana law, his complaint was timely filed

because it did not accrue until September 2006. However, “federal law

determines when a § 1983 claim accrues.” Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315,

319 (5th Cir. 1998). “The standard for when a § 1983 claim accrues is when “the

plaintiff is in possession of the ‘critical facts that he has been hurt and who has

inflicted the injury.’” Lavellee v. Listi, 611 F.2d 1129, 1131 (5th Cir. 1980)

(citation omitted). Dixon’s argument that he could not file his suit sooner

because he did not know the warden’s name to name him as the defendant is

meritless. There are countless cases, like Lavellee, in which a plaintiff has

brought suit against John or Jane Does when the defendant’s name is unknown,

but the defendant’s position is known. E.g., id at 1129; Bivens v. Six Unknown

Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

Dixon’s claims accrued in September 2005, when he learned of the injury

that formed the basis of his suit. Dixon did not file his suit until December 2006,

after the one year deadline had expired. See Jacobsen, 133 F.3d at 319.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment ofthe district court dismissing Dixon’s suit.

Dixon’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

The district court’s dismissal of Dixon’s complaint counts as a strike under

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996).

Dixon received two strikes as a result of the district court’s dismissal of his

complaint in Dixon v. Hubert, No. 07-30343, and our dismissal of that appeal.

Dixon is therefore barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action

or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-18-00358-CR

No. 02-18-00359-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 1517984D, 1520391D

Before Kerr, Pittman, and Birdwell, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

MIGUEL ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Miguel Angel Rodriguez attempts to appeal his convictions for (1) possession 

of less than one gram of methamphetamine, for which the trial court, pursuant to a 

plea bargain, sentenced him to six months in a state-jail facility; and (2) possession of 

one gram or more but less than four grams of methamphetamine, for which the trial 

court, again pursuant to a plea bargain, sentenced him to five years in the penitentiary.

See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(b), (c) (West 2017). In both cases, as 

part of the plea bargain, Rodriguez waived his right to appeal. Consistent with 

Rodriguez’s plea bargains, the trial court’s appellate-right certifications both state that 

each “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and that “the 

defendant has waived the right to appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

Thereafter Rodriguez filed a pro se notice of appeal for both causes. On 

August 15, 2018, we notified him and his trial counsel that his appeals could be 

dismissed based on the trial court’s certifications unless he or any party wanting to 

continue the appeals filed responses on or before August 27, 2018, showing grounds 

for continuing the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 44.3. Neither Rodriguez 

nor any other party has filed a response.

In accordance with the trial court’s certifications, we dismiss both appeals. See

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); see Arif v. State, No. 02-18-00126-CR, 

2018 WL 2142777, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 10, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., 

not designated for publication); Ponciano v. State, No. 02-17-00394-CR, 
3

2018 WL 1414731, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 22, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., 

not designated for publication).

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr

Elizabeth Kerr

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 11, 2018
EXHIBIT 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     The undersigned executive officer of First Federal Bancshares
of Arkansas, Inc. (the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the
Registrant's Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2002
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



                                   /s/Sherri R. Billings
                                   -------------------------------
                                   Name: Sherri R. Billings
                                   Title: EVP/Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 14, 2002
FILED

October 17, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

FIRST AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, )

)

Plaintiff/Appellee, )

) Appeal No.

) 01-A-01-9702-CH-00051

VS. )

) Davidson Chancery

) No. 93-3015-III(II)

NATIONAL PROJECT SERVICES, )

INC., )

)

Defendant/Appellant. )

ORDER ON PETITION TO REHEAR

The appellant has filed a petition to rehear. Upon consideration of

the petition and the entire record in this case, it is the judgment of the court that the

petition should be overruled.

It is so ordered.

ENTER this _____ day of October, 1997.

_______________________________

HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE

MIDDLE SECTION

_______________________________

SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE

_______________________________

BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
Devany, Dennis (OST) 

From: JULIE ROSS [julieross57@msn.com] 


Sent: ,Saturday, February 13, 2010 7:32 AM 


To:-- . Devany, Dennis (OST) 


Cc: Swanson, Brian (OST) 


Subject: keep Cape Air in Plattsburgh, NY 


... 	 As ~lifei~ngresident ofPlattsburgh, NY, I have watched our small airport grow into much 

larger, busier and more accessible airport with the opening several years ago of the new 

airport built on the former PAFB. I have used Cape Air service a number of times to fly my son 

home from Boston, knowing that each time he would have a safe and on time flight experience. 

Cape Air has been efficient, timely, reliable and most importantly, very affordable. There 

service has been one of the big reasons our new airport has grown into it's own, and I for one 

heartily reject our Legislator's vote to replace Cape Air with Colgan Air. I know little about 

Colgan and am not criticizing there service in general - I just don't feel we, as a community, 

need to bring in larger, more expensive flights, when Cape Air has served us so well. There 

have been many occasions when Cape Air's flights (9 passengers) were not full, so why do we 

need larger planes for such a short flight? Further, Cape Air provides more frequent flights, 

making connecting travel arrangements simple, and they are willing to do all this for a much 

lower set price than Colgan. If Colgan remains the airline of choice, and their prices rise (which 

seems apparent as their target range Is $75-125 each way), I will no longer find flying out of 

Plattsburgh affordable and will be willing to take the drive to Burlington, VT or Albany, NY to 

make flight arrangements - sort of.defeats the purpose of having that bigger, more·expensive 

airline here doesn't it? Please exercise your decision making powers and good judgement, and 

over-ride the Clinton County Legislator's recomendation - your doing so is not a reflection on 

their good intentions or their commitment to community, but an expression of a more 

experienced voice of reason. Maybe, before a decision is made, a targeted, reliable community 

survey should be done - not one that surveys the Canadian traveler as done before, but one 

that actually reflects the needs of the community this airport was built to serve - that might be 

the telling factor about why Cape Air should remain the airline of choice!!!!! 

Thank You 

Julie G. RoSs 


Plattsburgh, NY 


518561-3260 

1
----

----

| (1)    | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period      ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| (2)    | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company.                                                                                                                 |

| Date:      April 24, 2009 | /s/ Joseph L. Sullivan             |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                      | Joseph      L. Sullivan            |
|                      | President      and General Manager |
|                      | (principal      executive officer) |

----
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 119

To authorize testimony by Senate employee and representation by Senate

Legal Counsel.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 9 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. DOLE (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize testimony by Senate employee and

representation by Senate Legal Counsel.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. George C. Matthews,

Case No. 95–CR–11, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, a subpoena for testimony has been issued to Darin Schroeder,

an employee of the Senate on the staff of Senator

Feingold;

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or

in the possession of the Senate may promote the adminis-
2

SRES 119 ATS

tration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will

promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate; and

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(2) (1994), the Senate may direct its counsel

to represent committees, Members, officers and employees of the Senate with respect to subpoenas or orders issued to them in their official capacity: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved, That Darin Schroeder and any other em2 ployees in Senator Feingold’s office from whom testimony

3 may be necessary are authorized to testify and to produce

4 records in the case of United States v. George C. Mat5 thews, except concerning matters for which a privilege

6 should be asserted.

7 SEC. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed

8 to represent Darin Schroeder and any other employee in

9 connection with the testimony authorized under section 1.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 46 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 46

A resolution making majority party appointments to the Ethics Committee 
                  for the One Hundred Fourth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 11 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

 Mr. Lott (for Mr. Dole) submitted the following resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
A resolution making majority party appointments to the Ethics Committee 
                  for the One Hundred Fourth Congress.

    Resolved, That the following shall constitute the majority party's 
membership on the following Senate committee for the One Hundred Fourth 
Congress, or until their successors are appointed:
    Ethics: Mr. McConnell (chairman), Mr. Smith, and Mr. Craig.
                                 <all>
```