alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Opportunity for Public Comment**  **Environmental Assessment: Predator Damage Management in Idaho** You are invited b y the United Sates Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services Program (WS) in Idaho to participate in the planning process for the development of a new Environmental Assessment ( EA) on alternatives for reducing damage to agricultural and natural resources, and property; and risks to public health and safety caused b y predators in Idaho. Once completed, the new EA will replace existing EAs on Id aho WS ’ involvement in P redator D ama ge M anagement (PDM). Predator species involved in the majority of conflicts and damage in Idaho which will be addressed in the EA include badgers; black bears; black - billed magpies; bobcats; common ravens; co yotes ; feral/ free - rangin g dogs and wolf - dog hy b rids; grizzly

bears; mountain lions; raccoons; red foxes; and striped skunks . Other predators in Idaho that have historicall y caused only localized damage on an occasional basis include American crows , feral/free - ranging cats, long - tailed weasels , mink; s hort - tailed weasels , and spo tted skunks . Predation by wolves and fish - eating birds are addressed in separate EAs and will not be included in the new EA The new EA is being prepared in cooperation with the I daho Department of Fish and Game. Id aho WS is also consulting with the U.S. Department s of the Interior Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Idaho National Laboratory , and Id aho Department of Lands. WS has tentatively identified alternatives for involve ment in predator damage and conflict management in the state and issues which should be considered in the new EA . The agencies are seeking your input , and issues or concerns you may have regarding 1) the Id aho WS’ involvement in PDM ; 2) PDM alternatives which should be considered; and 3) any other relevant information and data you believe should be considered in the anal ys is. A ddit ional information on the project may be obtained at the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHI S - 2014 - 0105) , or b y calling or sending a written request to the Idaho WS state office: USDA, APHI S, WS, 9134 W est Blackeagle Dr., Boise, ID 83709. Phone: (208) 373 - 1630 . We request that all comments be submi tted in writing to the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the Idaho WS state office by January 14, 2015 for full consideration in the new EA. All comments received, including the names and addresses of those people who comment, will be part of the public record and will be released for public review as required and allowed by law.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 98

Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the SAFE KIDS Buckle

Up Car Seat Safety Check.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 12, 1997

Mrs. MORELLA (for herself and Mr. HOYER) 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 SAFE

KIDS Buckle Up Car Seat Safety Check.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS.

4 The National SAFE KIDS Campaign (in this resolu5 tion referred to as the ‘‘sponsor’’) shall be permitted to

6 sponsor a public event, the SAFE KIDS Buckle Up Car

7 Seat Safety Check, on the Capitol grounds on August 27

8 and 28, 1997, or on such other dates as the Speaker of

9 the House of Representatives and the President pro tem10 pore of the Senate may jointly designate.
2

•HCON 98 IH

1 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The event authorized to be con3 ducted under section 1 shall be free of admission charge

4 to the public and arranged not to interfere with the needs

5 of Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Ar6 chitect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board.

7 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall

8 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities

9 incident to all activities associated with the event.

10 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

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

12 approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the sponsor may

13 erect upon the Capitol grounds such stage, sound amplifi14 cation devices, and other related structures and equip15 ment, and may take such other actions, as may be re16 quired for the event authorized to be conducted under sec17 tion 1.

18 (b) ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.—The Architect of

19 the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board may make such

20 additional arrangements as may be required to carry out

21 the event.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Saul GARCIA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40549 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

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

Luis Saul Garcia-Martinez, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Saul Garcia-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia-Martinez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8563 

To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study to determine 

the costs for the Corps of Engineers to ensure that certain project 

activities authorized under Nationwide Permit 14 comply with public 

safety conditions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 9, 2020 

Mr. LONG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study 

to determine the costs for the Corps of Engineers to 

ensure that certain project activities authorized under 

Nationwide Permit 14 comply with public safety conditions, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army, acting 

5 through the Chief of Engineers, shall conduct a study to 

6 determine the costs for the Corps of Engineers to— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8563 IH

1 (1) include public safety as a condition for au2 thorizing a proposed project activity under Nation3 wide Permit 14; and 

4 (2) inspect an authorized project activity after 

5 construction to ensure that such project activity is 

6 maintained in compliance with all conditions related 

7 to public safety under Nationwide Permit 14. 

8 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

9 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 

10 the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

11 the House of Representatives and the Committee on Envi12 ronment and Public Works of the Senate a report con13 taining the results of the study conducted under sub14 section (a). 

15 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

16 (1) NATIONWIDE PERMIT 14.—The term ‘‘Na17 tionwide Permit 14’’ means the nationwide permit, 

18 relating to linear transportation projects, issued pur19 suant to section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 

20 U.S.C. 403) and section 404 of the Federal Water 

21 Pollution Control Act. 

22 (2) PROJECT ACTIVITY.—The term ‘‘project ac23 tivity’’ means an activity for which a permittee is reVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:51 Oct 31, 2020 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8563.IH H8563

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8563 IH

1 quired to submit a pre-construction notification 

2 under Nationwide Permit 14. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ART.5 FDS FOR 1ST QUARTER 10-Q
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ARONEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. SET FORTH IN THE COMPANY'S
FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,074,000
<SECURITIES>                                35,333,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,365,000
<PP&E>                                       5,114,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,128,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,616,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,907,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,611,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,616,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               878,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,093,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,093,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,093,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of North American
Technologies Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of
my knowledge, the Company's Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended December 31, 2002, (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Amendment fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

/s/ Kevin C. Maddox                                       Dated:  April 29, 2003
-------------------------------
Kevin C. Maddox
Chief Financial Officer
#### COM. v. JONES, K.

1695 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/15/2017

CP-51-CR-0008810-2015 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
#### Mario TORRES-SOSA, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 17-60006 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 22, 2018

Jaesa Woods McLin, Nicole Tamilyn Bowyer, Riguer Silva, L.L.C., Kenner, LA, for Petitioner

*337Leslie McKay, Esq., Senior Litigation Counsel, Corey Leigh Farrell, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mario Torres-Sosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge denying his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He contends that he has shown that he was persecuted due to his membership in a particular family group and that he fears future persecution on this basis.

We review the factual determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT under the substantial evidence standard. *Chen v. Gonzales,*470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under that standard, we may not reverse an immigration court’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” *Wang v. Holder,*569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). It is the petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that reached by the BIA. *Zhao v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005). Torres-Sosa has not met these standards.

Instead, he has shown only that he was subjected to threats, which do not show past persecution. *See Eduard v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004). Because Torres-Sosa’s divorce removes him from the particular social group in which the alleged persecution was based, he has not shown an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. *See Zhao,*404 F.3d at 306. Accordingly, he has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that reached by the IJ and BIA on the issue whether he was entitled to asylum. *See Zhao,*404 F.3d at 306. As Torres-Sosa has not shown that he is entitled to asylum, he concomitantly has not shown that he is entitled to withholding of removal. *See Efe v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). Finally, because he has not shown that removal to Mexico will more likely than not subject him to officially sanctioned torture, he has not shown that he should receive CAT relief. *See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch,*794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015); 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). The petition for review is 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.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of UST Liquidating Corporation. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Marc A. Weisman, Co-Chairman of Board of Directors of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company. /s/ Marc A. Weisman  Marc A. Weisman
Co-Chairman of Board of Directors
November 15, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10624-10625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5580]


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


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Medical Research Service Cooperative Studies Evaluation 
Committee; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 
92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) as amended, by section 5 of 
Public law 94-409, that a meeting of the Medical Research Service 
Cooperative Studies Evaluation Committee will be held at the Balboa Bay 
Club, 1221 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CA 92663, April 10-11 
1997. The session on April 10 is scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m. and 
end at 5:00 p.m. and on April 11 from 7:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. The 
meeting will be for the purpose of reviewing the following four new 
protocols for multi-hospital clinical trial: groin hernia management, 
prevention of access thrombosis on hemodialysis patient, positron 
emission tomography (PET) imaging for lung neoplasm, management of 
bipolar mental disorder and the progress of on-going cooperative study 
on treatment of alcoholic liver disease.
    The Committee advises the Chief Research and Development Officer 
through the Chief of the Cooperative Studies Program on the relevance 
and feasibility of the studies, the adequacy of the protocols, and the 
scientific validity and propriety of technical details, including 
protection of human subjects.
    The meeting will be open to the public from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 
on both days to discuss the general status of the program. Those who 
plan to attend should contact Dr. Ping Huang, Coordinator, Medical 
Research Service Cooperative Studies Evaluation Committee, Department 
of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, (202-273-8295), prior to April 3, 
1997.
    The meeting will be closed from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on April 10, 
1997, and from 8:00 a.m. to 12:45 p.m., on April 11, 1997, for 
consideration of specific proposals in accordance with provisions set 
forth in section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended by section 5 of 
Public Law 94-409, and 5 U.S.C. 552b6.

[[Page 10625]]

During this portion of the meeting, discussions and recommendations 
will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, 
staff and consultant critiques of research protocols, and similar 
documents, and the medical records of patients who are study subjects, 
the disclosures of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy.

    Dated: February 26, 1997.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
Heyward Bannister,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-5580 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
#### Pamela Denise IDLETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1806

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 16, 2018

Decided: March 9, 2018

Pamela Denise Idlett, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Pamela Denise Idlett appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s motion to remand for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012), and denying Idlett’s motion for summary judgment requesting an award of disability insurance benefits.* We *262review a district court’s summary judgment decision de novo, *Lee v. Town of Seaboard,*863 F.3d 323, 327 (4th Cir. 2017), and a district court’s choice of remedy in a social security action for an abuse of discretion, *Radford v. Colvin,*734 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013). We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny Idlett’s motion to appoint counsel. 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.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 Although the district court remanded Idlett’s case for further proceedings, the order is ap-pealable because the district court denied Id-lett's request for an award of benefits. *Forney v. Apfel,*524 U.S. 266, 271, 118 S.Ct. 1984, 141 L.Ed.2d 269 (1998).
#### Ismael RUIZ-SOLIS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-71539

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

*880John Carlos Barrera, Attorney, Acción Legal, PLLC, Nampa, ID, for Petitioner

Susan Bennett Green, Trial Attorney, 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

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 **

Ismael Ruiz-Solis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s determinations of credibility and continuous physical presence. *Singh v. Holder,*643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 2011); *Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See *Singh,*643 F.3d at 1180 (court must uphold agency’s credibility finding unless evidence compels a contrary result). Absent credible testimony or other evidence to the contrary, the agency properly relied on the signed Form 1-826, Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition, as evidence that Ruiz-Solis’s acceptance of voluntary departure in 2009 was knowing and voluntary. *See Espinoza v. INS,*45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (“information on an authenticated immigration form is presumed to be reliable in the absence of evidence to the contrary presented by the alien”).

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ruiz-Solis did not establish the required continuous physical presence and was therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); *Ibarra-Flores,*439 F.3d at 618 (voluntary departure interrupts physical presence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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