alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-1231.

#### Gregory Diaz, Petitioner v. California.

565 U.S. 815, 132 S. Ct. 94,

181 L. Ed. 2d 23,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6632.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.

Same case below, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105, 244 P.3d 501.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 312 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 312

  To reaffirm the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe reservation, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2019

  Mr. Keating (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Young, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. 
  LaMalfa, Mr. Gallego, Mr. McClintock, and Mr. Cole) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reaffirm the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe reservation, 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 ``Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation 
Reaffirmation Act''.

SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF INDIAN TRUST LAND.

    (a) In General.--The taking of land into trust by the United States 
for the benefit of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe of Massachusetts as 
described in the final Notice of Reservation Proclamation (81 Fed. Reg. 
948; January 8, 2016) is reaffirmed as trust land and the actions of 
the Secretary of the Interior in taking that land into trust are 
ratified and confirmed.
    (b) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an 
action (including an action pending in a Federal court as of the date 
of enactment of this Act) relating to the land described in subsection 
(a) shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be 
promptly dismissed.
    (c) Applicability of Laws.--All laws (including regulations) of the 
United States of general applicability to Indians or nations, Indian 
Tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 
U.S.C. 5101 et seq.)), shall be applicable to the Tribe and Tribal 
members, except that to the extent such laws and regulations are 
inconsistent with the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement, dated 
April 22, 2008, by and between the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Town 
of Mashpee, Massachusetts, the terms of that Intergovernmental 
Agreement shall control.
                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA R S HA N S I NG H, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 72477 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 843- 798 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , P A E Z , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D ar s han S i ngh, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons pr o s e f orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen r e m ova lpr oc e e di ngs . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or 

# FI LED APR23 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 72477 2 an ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n . T

ou f i gh iv. Mukasey , 5 3 8 F . 3 d9 8 8 , 9 9 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng S i ng h’ s m ot i on t o reopen as u n tim e lyw h e r e th e m o tio n w a s f ile do v e rs ix y e ar s a f

te rth e B I A ’s f

in a l o r d e r , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2), and S i ng h fai l ed t o p re se ntsuff i ci entevi dence of changed c i r c um s t anc e s i n I ndi at o qua l i f yf orthe r e gul a t orye xc e pt i on t o the t i m e l i m i tf or f ilin g m o tio n s to r e o p e n , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; N aj m ab ad iv. H

older , 597 F .3 d9 8 3 , 9 8 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( n e w lys ub m itte de v id e n c e m u s t b e “qu a lita tiv e ly d if f e r e n t” f r o m th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te da t th e p r io rh e ar in g ) ; T ouf i ghi , 53 8 F . 3dat 99 4-97 (e vi dence w as i rr el evanti n l i gh tof pri or advers e c re di bi l i ty det erm i nat i on ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
**CH 2**

**DoD 4000.25-1-M**

*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP8.28. APPENDIX 8.28**

**RECEIPT CONFIRMATION FOR MATERIEL OBLIGATION VALIDATION REQUEST**

AP3.28-1

1

APPENDIX 3.28

AP8.28-1

APPENDIX 8.28
No. 10-11087.

#### Lucio Joaquin Camarillo, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 866, 132 S. Ct. 212,

181 L. Ed. 2d 115,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6666.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 422 Fed. Appx. 566.
No. 11-5025.

#### Joseph L. Arnold, III, Petitioner v. Sean P. Mallon, et al.

565 U.S. 886, 132 S. Ct. 259,

181 L. Ed. 2d 151,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5443,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2846 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2846

   To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to permit Members of 
 Congress to use facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
   the purposes of meeting with constituents, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2019

 Mr. Mast (for himself, Mr. Soto, Mr. Budd, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Higgins of 
  Louisiana, Mr. Bergman, Mrs. Walorski, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Mullin, Mr. 
  Marshall, Ms. Gabbard, Mr. Stivers, Ms. Norton, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. 
    Kind, Mr. Olson, Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Lawson of Florida, and Mr. 
  Bilirakis) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to permit Members of 
 Congress to use facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
   the purposes of meeting with constituents, 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 ``Improving Veterans Access to 
Congressional Services Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. USE OF FACILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS BY 
              MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

    (a) In General.--Upon request of a Member of Congress and subject 
to regulations prescribed under subsection (b), the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs shall permit the Member to use a facility of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs for the purposes of meeting with 
constituents of the Member.
    (b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
prescribe regulations regarding the use of facilities of the Department 
of Veterans Affairs by Members of Congress. Regulations prescribed 
under this subsection--
            (1) shall require that a space within a facility of the 
        Department provided to a Member under subsection (a) is--
                    (A) available during normal business hours; and
                    (B) located in an area that is visible and 
                accessible to constituents of the Member; and
            (2) may not prohibit a Member from advertising the use by 
        the Member of a space within a facility of the Department under 
        subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
98

Section C: Recommended Funding Levels, by State

Maryland

Program Intervention Budgets: 2014

Recommended Annual Investment $48.0 million

Deaths in State Caused by Smoking

Annual average smoking-attributable deaths 7,500

Youth aged 0-17 projected to die from smoking 92,500

Annual Costs Incurred in State from Smoking

Total medical $2,710 million

State Revenue from Tobacco Sales and Settlement

FY 2012 tobacco tax revenue $410.7 million

FY 2012 tobacco settlement payment $145.8 million

Total state revenue from tobacco sales and settlement $556.5 million

Percent Tobacco Revenue to Fund at Recommended Level 9%

Annual Total (Millions) Annual Per Capita

Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended

I. State and Community Interventions 

Multiple social resources working together will 

have the greatest long-term population impact.

$12.8 $16.0 $2.18 $2.72

II. Mass-Reach Health Communication Interventions 

Media interventions work to prevent smoking initiation, 

promote cessation, and shape social norms.

$3.5 $5.0 $0.59 $0.85

III. Cessation Interventions 

Tobacco use treatment is effective and highly cost-effective. $13.0 $20.7 $2.21 $3.52

IV. Surveillance and Evaluation 

Publicly funded programs should be accountable and 

demonstrate effectiveness.

$2.9 $4.2 $0.50 $0.71

V. Infrastructure, Administration, and Management 

Complex, integrated programs require experienced 

staff to provide fiscal management, accountability, 

and coordination.

$1.5 $2.1 $0.25 $0.35

TOTAL $33.7 $48.0 $5.73 $8.15

Note: A justification for each program element and the rationale for the budget estimates are provided in Section A. The funding estimates presented are based on adjustments for changes in population and cost-of-living increases since Best Practices—2007 was published. The actual 

funding required for implementing programs will vary depending on state characteristics, such as prevalence of tobacco use, sociodemographic 

factors, and other factors. See Appendix E for data sources on deaths, costs, revenue, and state-specific factors. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • Office on Smoking and Health

www.cdc.gov/tobacco • tobaccoinfo@cdc.gov • 1 (800) CDC-INFO or 1 (800) 232-4636 

2014
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1 D 2 0 2 4

- 0392

_____________________________
R EX A T AYLOR , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Brantley S. Clark
, Jr., Judge

.

September 16, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

.
L EWIS , R OBERTS , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________Jessica J. Yeary
, Public Defender, and Kathleen Pafford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
No. 10-609.

#### New Jersey Peace Action, et al., Petitioners v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States.

562 U.S. 1139, 131 S. Ct. 937,

178 L. Ed. 2d 754,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 546.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 379 Fed. Appx. 217.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 1, 2011

Decided November 3, 2011

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 11

‐ 1765

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

CIPRIANO MUNOZ

‐ PELAYO,

Defendant

‐ Appellant. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 10 CR 732

‐ 1

Amy J. St. Eve,

Judge

.

O R D E R

After three prior illegal reentries and two prior removals, Cipriano Munoz

‐ Pelayo

illegally reentered the United States again some time after he was removed in 2007. He

came to the attention of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials after being arrested

for drug possession in 2010. He later pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States,

see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and was sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment, 9 months below the

bottom of the guidelines range.

Munoz

‐ Pelayo filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer has concluded that

the appeal is frivolous and seeks permission to withdraw. See Anders v. California

, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Munoz

‐ Pelayo has not filed a response opposing counsel’s motion. See C IR

. R. 

### NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 11

‐ 1765 Page 2

51(b). We limit our review to the potential issue identified in counsel’s facially adequate

brief. See United States v. Schuh

, 289 F.3d 968, 973–74 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel represents that Munoz

‐ Pelayo does not want his guilty plea vacated and so

appropriately omits discussing the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the

plea

. See United States v. Knox

, 287 F.3d 667, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2002).

Munoz

‐ Pelayo’s counsel does consider whether Munoz

‐ Pelayo could challenge his

sentence, but properly concludes that any such challenge would be frivolous. As counsel

notes, we presume that a below

‐ guidelines sentence is reasonable, see Rita v. United States

,

551 U.S. 338, 347

‐ 56 (2007); United States v. Berg

, 640 F.3d 239, 255 (7th Cir. 2011), and

counsel cannot identify any reason to disregard that presumption. The court also

appropriately applied the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, discussing Munoz

‐ Pelayo’s criminal

history and the seriousness of his repeated attempts to live illegally in the United States.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is G RANTED and the appeal is D ISMISSED



### .
No. 11-5179.

#### Dennis Perdue, Petitioner v. Nick Ludwick, Warden.

565 U.S. 893, 132 S. Ct. 278,

181 L. Ed. 2d 166,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5668.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-76697, 33-1805, 33-22289, 33-50248,
33-74488, 333-62933 and 333-81955) and the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (Files Nos. 2-96502 and 33-14873 Amendment No. 1) of our report dated
August 6, 1999, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Quixote Corporation and Subsidiaries as of
June 30, 1999 and 1998, and for each of the years ended June 30, 1999, 1998
and 1997, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Quixote Corporation.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Chicago, Illinois
September 27, 1999
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23
CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the use of our report dated January 31, 2001, except for
the second paragraph of Note 23 as to which the date is February 26, 2001, in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K relating to the Consolidated Financial
Statements of F&M National Corporation and Subsidiaries, appearing under Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, including, without limitation, the
incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses constituting part of the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (#333-63111) and Form S-8 (#333-63113) of
F&M National Corporation.


                          Yount, Hyde & Barbour, P.C.



March 29, 2001
Winchester, Virginia
EXHIBIT 32.2
    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
   
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), the undersigned, David C. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of Network-1 Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify to his knowledge, that:
 
 The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  
 /s/ David C. Kahn
 Chief Financial Officer
 May 15, 2014
No. 10-10677.

#### Lonzo Dowtin, Petitioner v. Carmen Palmer, Warden.

565 U.S. 843, 132 S. Ct. 158,

181 L. Ed. 2d 73,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6106.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63**

**OFTITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**

 

I, David R. Asplund, theChief Executive Officer of Lime Energy Co., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tothe best of my knowledge and belief:

 

1.               The Quarterly Report Under Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q for theQuarterly Period ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in theQuarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31,2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Lime Energy Co. and its subsidiaries.

 

 
| /s/ David R. Asplund    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| David R. Asplund        |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| May 13, 2010       |   |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-
43811, 333-85769, 333-85769-01, 333-85769-02, and 333-85769-03 on Form S-3 and
Registration Statement No. 333-43811-01 on Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to
Form S-3 of TXU Gas Company, of our report dated February 1, 2001, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of TXU Gas Company for the year ended December
31, 2000.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 5, 2001
No. 10-10672.

#### Akili Nix, Petitioner v. New York.

565 U.S. 843, 132 S. Ct. 157,

181 L. Ed. 2d 72,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6128.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Judicial Department, denied.

Same case below, 78 App. Div. 3d 1698, 912 N.Y.S.2d 832.
CA. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
COURTNEY LANGSTON LOWE, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. No. 67505



# FILED MAR 1 8 2016

TRACE 4( UNDEMAN CLEROL

- UPREME COURT By • Yo-1/44--
- r-e‘

DEPUTY CLERK 

### ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING APPEAL This appeal was initiated by the filing of a pro se appeal. Further review of the document submitted in this case reveals a jurisdictional defect. The notice of appeal submitted in this court does not bear the file stamp of the district court clerk. Notices of appeal must be filed in the district court in the first instance. 

### See NRAP 3(a)(1). Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to administratively close the instant appeal and transmit the notice of appeal to the district court clerk.

It is so ORDERED.

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20 Courtney Langston Lowe Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPFIEME'COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ae )4, - 0 3(4 0
NO. 07-02-0241 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L C JUNE 11, 2002

______________________________ JUSTIN SHEPHERD

Appellant
v. THE STATEOF TEXAS , Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 47 TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUN TY; NO. 44,331-A; HON. DAVID GLEASON, PRESIDING

_______________________________ ABATEMENT AND REMAND

_______________________________ Before QUINN, REAVIS, and JOHNSON, JJ. Appellant, Justin S hepherd filed a pro se notice of appeal on May 28, 2002 and a mot ion to have an a tto rne y ap poin ted on J une10, 200 2. A cco rdin gly, w e now

aba te t his appeal and remand the cause to the 47th Di str ic t Court of Pot ter County (trial court) for f urther proceedings. Upon rem and, the trial court shall imm ediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduc t a hearing to determ ine the following: 1. whet her appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;2

2. whet her appellant is indigent; 3. whet her

cou nse l hasbee n ap poin ted to p ros ecu te t his a ppe al; 4. if counsel has not been appointed, w hether appellant is entitled to appointed counsel; and 5. whet her the appellant is entitled to the preparation of a free appellate record. The trial court shall cause the hearing to be tra nsc ribe d. F urt her m ore , th e tr ial c our t sh all executefindings of fact and conc lusions of law addressing the aforem entioned issues and disclosing the nam e, address, state b ar num ber, and tele pho ne a nd f ax num ber s of new ly appointed couns e l, if any. Th e district court sh all also caus e to be d eveloped 1 ) a supplemental clerk’s recor d containi ng the findi ngs of fact and conclusions of law and all
o rd ers of the district court issu ed as a result of its hearing on this m atter, and 2) a reporter’s record tran scribing the evidence and argum ents presented at the af or eme ntioned hearing. Additionally, the district court shall cause the supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before July 11, 2002. S hou l d further time be ne eded by the trial court to performthese tas ks, then sam e m ust be requested before June 11, 2002. It is so ordered.

Pe r C ur i am Do not publish.