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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 200

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago

should be considered for accession to the North American Free Trade

Agreement.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 19, 1995

Mr. LUGAR submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Finance

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Republic of

Trinidad and Tobago should be considered for accession

to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Whereas the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago meets the requirements for accession to the North American Free

Trade Agreement (hereafter referred to as the

‘‘NAFTA’’);

Whereas the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago has successfully implemented programs to liberalize the country’s

economy and trade regime, particularly by lowering tariffs, divesting its holdings in the production sector, and

promoting private sector development;
2

•SRES 200 IS

Whereas the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago has entered

into a Bilateral Investment Treaty and an Intellectual

Property Rights Agreement with the United States;

Whereas the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago has expressed

an active interest in entering into negotiations for accession to the NAFTA;

Whereas the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago seeks to ensure that the markets of North America and the markets

of Trinidad and Tobago are open to each others’ products and services on a reciprocal basis;

Whereas major United States-based multinational companies

are successfully operating in the Republic of Trinidad

and Tobago and access to the NAFTA would afford these

companies enhanced investment security as well as a

more comprehensive legal framework for their operations

in Trinidad and Tobago;

Whereas the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is a small but

significant non-OPEC producer of oil and gas and has

continually and significantly contributed to the energy security of the Western Hemisphere;

Whereas several United States energy companies have substantial investments in the petrochemical and hydrocarbon sectors of the economy of Trinidad and Tobago;

and

Whereas many members of the Congress and the Administration have applauded the fiscal discipline which has led to

the continued liberalization of the economy of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and have expressed interest

in including the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago in the

NAFTA: Now, therefore, be it
3

•SRES 200 IS

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

2 Republic of Trinidad and Tobago should be deemed ready,

3 willing, and able to undertake all of the general obligations

4 imposed by the North American Free Trade Agreement

5 and that the President should consider favorably the re6 quest of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to com7 mence negotiations for accession to the NAFTA as soon

8 as comparable negotiations with the Government of Chile

9 are concluded.

Æ
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 66

Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the sixteenth annual National

Peace Officers’ Memorial Service.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 24, 1997

Mr. KIM submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the sixteenth

annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL

4 PEACE OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL SERVICE.

5 The National Fraternal Order of Police and its auxil6 iary shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, the six7 teenth annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service,

8 on the Capitol grounds on May 15, 1997, or on such other

9 date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and

10 the President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly des-
2

•HCON 66 IH

1 ignate, in order to honor the more than 117 law enforce2 ment officers who died in the line of duty during 1996.

3 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The event authorized to be con5 ducted on the Capitol grounds under section 1 shall be

6 free of admission charge to the public and arranged not

7 to interfere with the needs of Congress, under conditions

8 to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the

9 Capitol Police Board.

10 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The National

11 Fraternal Order of Police and its auxiliary shall assume

12 full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident

13 to all activities associated with the event.

14 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

15 (a) STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.—Subject to the

16 approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the National Fra17 ternal Order of Police and its auxiliary are authorized to

18 erect upon the Capitol grounds such stage, sound amplifi19 cation devices, and other related structures and equip20 ment, as may be required for the event authorized to be

21 conducted on the Capitol grounds under section 1.

22 (b) ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.—The Architect of

23 the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are authorized
3

•HCON 66 IH

1 to make any such additional arrangements as may be re2 quired to carry out the event.

Æ
No. 11-9710.

#### Barreto *v.*Lattimore, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 20 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 20

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                        regarding school prayer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

   Mr. Solomon introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                        regarding school prayer.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Nothing in this constitution shall prohibit the inclusion of 
voluntary prayer in any public school program or activity. No person 
shall be coerced by the United States or by any State to participate in 
such prayer. Neither the United States nor any State shall prescribe 
the content of any such prayer.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,808
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  499,911
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,321)
<INVENTORY>                                    252,194
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,318
<PP&E>                                       1,222,137
<DEPRECIATION>                               (959,287)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 999,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          624,305
<BONDS>                                        335,930
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,231
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   999,760
<SALES>                                        906,760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               906,760
<CGS>                                          538,091
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               295,280
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             996,673
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (923,284)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### SERVED : OCTOBE R7 , 201 0 

### : v-PARTMEN TO F U.S . DEPARTMEN

T O FTRANSPORTATION '^riMMON S OFFICE O

FHEARING S ' ' WASHINGTON , DC ...r, n nr j 1 3 p 12

: 0 5 I N TH E MATTE RO F TR M ENTERPRISES , LL

C FA A DOCKE

T NO . CP10CE000 5 (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) FDM S NO . FAA-2010-079 4 NOTIC E O FASSIGNMEN T OFPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor

e designate da s Cas e No . 20 lOC E 190009 ) ha s bee

n assigne dto the undersigned . All futur

e pleading s an

dothe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shall b e servedon th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , andthe othe r person s on th e attache dServic e List .

Ronni e A . ^ ^ Chief Administratiw-fcSwJudg e Attachmen t - Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No . CP10CE000 5 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC^3 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Mar k B . Sizemore , Partne r TR M Enterprises , LLC , Responden t 320 1 Bristo l Hwy . Johnso n City , TN 37601-156 5 Christophe r

R . Stevenson , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Southern Regio n P.O . Bo x 2063 6 Atlanta , G A 3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yoder , Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-214 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expeditedcourier , us e th e following address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC^30 .

- 2 -
#### Jose Luis PINEDA, also known as Marcelo Pineda, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 17-60074 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 25, 2018

David J. Gottlieb, Hyattsville, MD, for Petitioner

Virginia M. Lum, Office of Immigration Litigation, Benjamin J. Zeitlin, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before BARKSDALE, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Luis Pineda, a native and citizen of Mexico who obtained lawful permanent resident status in 1992, seeks review of the Board of; Immigration Appeals’ decision upholding an order for his removal, contending: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) (definition of crime of violence) is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) he was denied due process because his withholding-of-removal claim was denied before he filed an application for that relief.

Our court generally lacks jurisdiction to review a removal order against an alien who, like Pineda, is removable based on the commission of an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); *Arce-Vences v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 167, 170 (5th Cir. 2007). We may review, however, constitutional claims and questions of law raised in a petition for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); *Arce-Vences,*512 F.3d at 170. We therefore have jurisdiction to consider both of Pineda’s claims, each of which is reviewed *de novo. Diaz-Esparza v. Sessions,*697 Fed.Appx. 338, 339 (5th Cir. 2017) (§ 16(b) challenge); *Anwar v. INS,*116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir. 1997) (due process).

First, as Pineda concedes, his challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is foreclosed by *United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670, 677 (5th Cir.) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed*(29 Sept. 2016) (No. 16-6259), which held “§ 16(b) is not unconstitutionally vague”. *E.g., United States v. Alcantar,*733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013) (“only an intervening change in the law ... permits a subsequent panel to decline to follow a prior Fifth Circuit precedent”). He is therefore removable and ineligible for asylum based on his conviction for an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. §§ U58(b)(2)(B)(i).. & 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

*316Second, to establish a due-process violation, Pineda must make “an initial showing of substantial prejudice”. Anwar, 116 F.3d at 144 (citing *Howard v. INS,*930 F.2d 432, 436 (5th Cir. 1991)). Pineda cannot show substantial prejudice without making a *prima facie*showing that he was eligible for withholding of removal. *See id.; Tariq v. Holder,*537 Fed.Appx. 494, 496 (5th Cir. 2013). He has forfeited the due-process claim by failing to brief whether he would have demonstrated eligibility for such relief had he filed an 1-589 application. *E.g., Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); *Anwar,*116 F.3d at 144.

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.
#### Roberto German TEPOZTECO-RIOS, AKA Roberto Rios, AKA Roberto Tepozteco, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-72198

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Carolina Gomez, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Carolina Gomez, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner

*907OIL, Steven Kiyoto Uejio, Esquire, Trial Attorney, 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

Before: 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 **

Roberto German Tepozteco-Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) removal order. We haye jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Tawadrus v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

We reject Tepozteco-Rios’s contention that the agency denied his right to counsel and violated due process, where he expressly opted to continue unrepresented after the IJ asked if he would like more time to find an attorney. *See id,*at 1103 (explaining requirements for waiver of right to counsel); *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

The BIA did not err in rejecting Tepoz-teco-Rios’s unsupported contentions that he was incapable of representing himself and that he fears returning to Mexico. *See Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS,*353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (argument of counsel does not constitute evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

. UOOTMAN
2402**P~~;. ~TI2.!;.!;.T** **WOU~TON .** **T!;.X~ 7700~**  October 25, 2015**71~-247-9548** Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk Third Court ofAppeals P.O. Box 12547 Austin, TX 78711-2547 Re: No. 03-14-00515-CV (3rd Court of Appeals) 

### Salvatore Magaraci and Estate Protection Planning Corporation 

### v. Eduardo S. Espinosa in his Capacity as Receiver of Retirement Value, LLC Mr. Kyle: This is in response to your letter dated October 8, 2015, wherein you instruct me to notify the Court if I intend to argue this case before the court on November 18, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. I intend to argue . Sincerely,

Certificate of Service I hereby certify that, I have served the forgoing document upon opposing counsel by electronic service. Dated: \0-' 2..)"'!)

@ Recycted Pipet ACCEPTED 03-14-00515-CV 7527881 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/26/2015 12:00:00 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

   We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-4 of
NextMedia Operating, Inc. of our reports dated February 25, 2002, and June 6,
2001 relating to the financial statements of PNEH Carve-Out Businesses and
Pinnacle Broadcasting Company, respectively, which appear in such Registration
Statement. We also consent to the references to us under the heading "Experts"
in such Registration Statement.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 14, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            374,994
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     420,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                       207,615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,155,224
<PP&E>                                          3,907,776
<DEPRECIATION>                                    414,905
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,552,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,759,871
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           19,969
<OTHER-SE>                                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,552,126
<SALES>                                         1,081,884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,081,884
<CGS>                                             545,489
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,446,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                8,131,856
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                912,715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,496,775)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.54)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 16.1



July 10, 2002

Arthur Andersen LLP
101 2nd Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105

Attn: Rick Blumenfeld, Managing Partner

Gentlemen:

This is to inform you that Cotelligent Inc. will no longer require the services
of Arthur Andersen LLP. Our decision is based upon thorough consideration given
to our current and future business needs.

Attached is a copy of our current report on Form 8-K disclosing the dismissal of
Arthur Andersen and the appointment of KPMG as Cotelligent's independent
accountants. Please furnish a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission
stating whether or not Arthur Andersen agrees with the statements contained in
the first three paragraphs under Item 4 of Cotelligent's Form 8-K.

A representative from KPMG LLP will be contacting you in the next few days to
complete inquiries normal under the circumstances. In addition, please make
arrangements to allow KPMG LLP access to your work papers related to your
examinations of Cotelligent's financial statements for the year ended December
31, 2001, as well as the quarter ended March 31, 2002.

                                              Sincerely,
                                              Cotelligent, Inc.


                                              /s/ Curtis J. Parker
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Curtis J. Parker
                                              Chief Financial Officer

CC:      James Lavelle, Chief Executive Officer, Cotelligent
         Paulette DeFalco, Partner, KPMG
No. D-2650.

#### In re Disbarment of Howell.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 566 U. S. 933.]
No. 11-1280.

#### Fossen et al. *v.*Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 353

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 21 (legislative day, OCTOBER 2), 1998

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the sine die adjournment of second session

of the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Wednesday, October 21, 1998, or Thursday,

4 October 22, 1998, on a motion offered pursuant to this

5 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des-
2

HCON 353 RDS

1 ignee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on the

2 second day after Members are notified to reassemble pur3 suant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, or until

4 a time designated pursuant to section 3 of this resolution;

5 and that when the Senate adjourns on Wednesday, Octo6 ber 21, 1998, or Thursday, October 22, 1998, on a motion

7 offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Ma8 jority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned sine die,

9 or until noon on the second day after Members are notified

10 to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent res11 olution.

12 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

13 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

14 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead15 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

16 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

17 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

18 SEC. 3. During any adjournment of the House pursu19 ant to this concurrent resolution, the Speaker, acting after

20 consultation with the Minority Leader, may notify the

21 Members of the House to reassemble whenever, in his

22 opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. After re23 assembling pursuant to this section, when the House ad24 journs on any day on a motion offered pursuant to this

25 section by its Majority Leader or his designee, the House
3

HCON 353 RDS

1 shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the first section

2 of this concurrent resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives October 20,

1998.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.