alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-10236.

#### George E. McDermott, Petitioner v. Kenneth J. MacFadyen, et al.

565 U.S. 1101, 132 S. Ct. 867,

181 L. Ed. 2d 564,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8935.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 831, 132 S. Ct. 130, 181 L. Ed. 2d 52, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 5701.
No. 11-6309.

#### Jeremy Jason Brooks, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 958, 132 S. Ct. 441,

181 L. Ed. 2d 286,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7182.

October 11, 2011.

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

Same case below, 436 Fed. Appx. 788.
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (a) | A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 has been made under my supervision. |

|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period. |

|                                                                                                                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                           |
| /s/ Ryan M. Hershberger                                                                                                   |
| Ryan M. HershbergerAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2017-B |
No. 11-673.

#### Marcus R. Abbe, et al., Petitioners v. City of San Diego, California.

565 U.S. 1115, 132 S. Ct. 1062,

181 L. Ed. 2d 741,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 370.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 444 Fed. Appx. 189.
No. 10-6568.

#### Anthony Eugene Lewis, Petitioner v. King County, Washington.

562 U.S. 1067, 131 S. Ct. 651,

178 L. Ed. 2d 489,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9366.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 11-7346.

#### Arthur L. Hairston, Sr., Petitioner v. William A. Scism, Warden (two judgments).

565 U.S. 1106, 132 S. Ct. 1041,

181 L. Ed. 2d 728,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 484.

January 9, 2012.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
(1) Adjusting Price $17.08 CWT

(2) Base Price $16.95 CWT

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.13

(4) Price change per gallon $0.0112

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.0056

Price change per quart $0.0028

Price change per pint $0.0014

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.0010

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.0009

Price change per half pint $0.0007

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.01

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.01

Price adjustment per quart $0.00

Price adjustment per pint $0.00

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.00

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price adjustment per half pint $0.00

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positive or increases.

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032 Alt. I)

Based on California Dept. of Food and Agriculture Announcement of Minimum Prices

 Effective Date: May 3, 2015
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3549 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3549

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 
                deductions for personal casualty losses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 27, 2019

  Ms. Brownley of California introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 
                deductions for personal casualty losses.

    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 ``Protecting Homeowners from Disaster 
Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL CASUALTY LOSSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 165(h) is amended by striking paragraph 
(5).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to losses sustained in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $8.14 CWT 0.965 $7.86

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $3.1269 LB 3.5 $10.94

Class I Price $18.80

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $7.75 CWT 0.965 $7.48

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $3.0035 LB 3.5 $10.51

Class I Price $17.99

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.81

(4) Price change per gallon $0.07

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.03

Price change per quart $0.02

Price change per pint $0.01

Price change per 14-oz pg. $0.01

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.01

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.01

Price change per half pint $0.00

(6) Price adjustment per gallon (128-oz) $0.07

Price adjustment per half gallon (64-oz) $0.03

Price adjustment per quart (32-oz) $0.02

Price adjustment per pint (16oz) $0.01

Price change per 14-oz pg. $0.01

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.01

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.01

Price adjustment per half pint (8-oz) $0.00

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: Mar 3rd, 2024
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60421

Summary Calendar

RAFAEL MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner

v.

ELAINE C. DUKE, ACTING SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order 

of the Department of Homeland Security

DHS No. A036 421 288

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rafael Martinez-Rodriguez (Martinez) petitions for review of an order of 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reinstating his prior deportation 

order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Martinez contends that (1) he 

reentered lawfully and the immigration officer violated a reinstatement 

regulation by failing to verify his claim that he had been admitted lawfully; 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 28, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60421 Document: 00514174694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2017
No. 16-60421

2

(2) the immigration officer violated his right to due process during the 

reinstatement proceeding; and (3) reinstatement constituted a gross 

miscarriage of justice because he was not removable as charged originally.

There is nothing in the administrative record demonstrating that 

Martinez applied for and obtained express consent to reapply for admission 

before he reentered, and Martinez does not argue that he applied for or 

obtained such express consent. Nor does he argue that the border patrol 

agent’s permission to enter the United States was tantamount to the requisite 

express consent to reapply for admission. His argument, unsupported by the 

record, that he was admitted through the port of entry does not compel a 

conclusion that his reentry was not illegal. See Anderson v. Napolitano, 611 

F.3d 275, 278 (5th Cir. 2010); Avalos-Martinez v. Johnson, 560 F. App’x 385, 

388-89 (5th Cir. 2014).

Relying on facts outside of the administrative record, Martinez contends 

that he was denied due process during the reinstatement proceeding. Aliens 

do have a Fifth Amendment right to due process in reinstated removal 

proceedings, Ojeda-Terrazas v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 292, 302 (5th Cir. 2002), but 

an alien must make an initial showing of substantial prejudice to prevail on a 

due process challenge, De Zavala v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 879, 883 (5th Cir. 2004). 

Martinez has not shown that the result in this case would be different if he had 

been given the procedural safeguards he seeks, so his due process challenge 

fails. See Ojeda-Terrazas, 290 F.3d at 302.

Martinez has not shown a gross miscarriage of justice, leaving this court 

without authority to review his prior removal order. See Martinez v. Johnson, 

740 F.3d 1040, 1042 (5th Cir. 2014); Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 F.3d 508

513-14 (5th Cir. 2006).

The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 16-60421 Document: 00514174694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2017
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00088-CR

JAMARIO BERNARD PICKETT APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Jamario Bernard Pickett attempts to appeal from his conviction 

for assault on a family or household member with a previous conviction. See

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2013). The trial court’s 

certification states that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO 

right of appeal.” On March 10, 2014, we notified Pickett that this appeal was 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

subject to dismissal unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a 

response by March 20, 2014, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. We have received no response. Accordingly, in 

accordance with the trial court’s certification, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED: April 3, 2014
```

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Scotia Pacific Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

         (a) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2004 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

         (b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: November 12, 2004

                                           /S/           ROBERT E. MANNE
                                     -------------------------------------------------
                                                         Robert E. Manne
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code).
```
#### R. Bazile Brossier and Ethel D. Brossier, his Wife, *Appellants,*v. E. C. Young, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed April 29, 1926.

*704
      *W. B. Crawford,*for Appellants;

17. *M. Murphy,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein,'and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the’premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged bjr .the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Wi-iiteield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
No. 11-6735.

#### Howell W. Woltz, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1019, 132 S. Ct. 562,

181 L. Ed. 2d 405,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7955.

November 7, 2011.

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

Same case below, 427 Fed. Appx. 249.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROCIO VIVIANA MONCADA FLORES,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00020-CR

Appeal from the

218th Judicial District Court

of La Salle County, Texas

(TC#21-09-00051-CRL)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on Appellant’s “Withdrawal of Notice of Appeal,” which 

we construe as a voluntary motion to dismiss the appeal.1See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a) (governing 

voluntary dismissal of appeals in criminal cases). Appellant represents in the motion that she no 

longer wishes to pursue this appeal. Along with the signature of her attorney, the motion also bears 

Appellant’s signature on its face. We have not yet issued an opinion in this case. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

GINA M. PALAFOX, JUSTICE

May 5, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, J.J. 

1 This case was transferred from the Fourth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the 

Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of 

Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
Partnering for Vaccine Equity: Program Partners

CDC is collaborating with national, state, and community-level partners through the Partnering for Vaccine Equity 

Program to increase uptake and access to adult COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations among people and 

communities experiencing racial and ethnic disparities.

388 Nonprofits

45

Federally 

Qualified 

Health Centers

15 Universities

15 Health 

Departments

15 Community 

Health Centers

11 Medical 

Associations

6 Social Media 

Partners

2 Local 

Governments

For more information on this program, please visit www.cdc.gov/vaccines/health-equity

For questions or comments, please contact adultvaxprogram@cdc.gov

499

Total Partners

African American/Black

Hispanic/Latino

American Indian/Alaska Native

Asian American/Pacific Islander

Mechanism Primary 

Recipients

No. of 

Partners Purpose

IP21-2106 National Minority-led 

Organizations 198 Fund and support local affiliates to lead vaccine confidence and access activities in their 

communities, build partnerships, and build the evidence-base

IP21-2107 Medical/Professional 

Associations 4 Support medical professionals and providers of color with tools and resources

IP21-2108 Foundations/National 

Organizations 226 Fund and support community-based organizations to lead vaccine confidence and access 

activities in their communities, build partnerships, and build the evidence-base

DP18-1813 REACH Program 

Recipients 38 Build on long-standing health equity work in racial and ethnic minority communities to build 

confidence in and access to COVID and flu vaccines

OT18-1802 NACCHO and NACHC 2 Work with local health departments and community health centers on COVID and flu vaccine 

access and confidence activities

IP17-1703 Assn. of Immunization 

Managers 1 Provide technical assistance and support to REACH recipients and the 64 immunization 

jurisdiction awardees

IP21-2113 Academic Institutions 

and ASTHO 30 Fund local partners in 5 or more communities, evaluate projects, and disseminate bestpractices

61 Primary Recipients Priority Populations

438 Subrecipients

50 States, Territories, and Indian 

Health Service Tribal Areas
No. 11-6982.

#### Ronald Gottschalk, Petitioner v. State Bar of California.

565 U.S. 1120, 132 S. Ct. 1016,

181 L. Ed. 2d 751,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 394,

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
No. 11-6547.

#### Malik Snell, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 991, 132 S. Ct. 532,

181 L. Ed. 2d 373,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7675.

October 31, 2011.

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

Same case below, 432 Fed. Appx. 80.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      31,329,307
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,958,485
<PP&E>                                       2,857,539
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,511,317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,377,958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,561,887
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       278,734
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,036,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,377,958
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,712,699
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,973
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (21,170,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (21,170,100)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (21,170,100)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.77)


</TABLE>
•
 RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 57
 

Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Removal of
 

Strontium Sulfide from the List of Hazardous Wastes
 

53 FR 43881-43884
 

October 31, 1988
 

(Non-HSWA Cluster V) .
 

STATE ANALOG IS:
 

FEDERAL ANALOGOUS MORE BROAD· 

FEDERAL RCRA STATE EQUIV- STRIN- ER IN 

REQUIREMENT CITATION CITATION ALENT GENT SCOPE 

PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE - WAC 173-303
 

SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
 

t DISCARDED COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, OFF-5PECIACATION SPECIES, CONTAINER RESIDUES, 

AND SPILL RESIDUES THEREOF 

remove listing 261.33(e)	 9903 x 

The following waste has been removed from the 261.33(e) list: 

"P107...1314-96-1...Strontium sulfide" •	 APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261 

HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
 

.t	 remove listing Appendix VIII 9905 X 

The following waste has been removed from Appendix VIII: 

"Strontium sulfide...Same...1314-96-1 II 

,/ 

•	 October 31, 1988 - Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Certification
      by the Chairman of the Board Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as
      Adopted**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





Pursuant
      to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, Arnold S. Lippa, hereby certify that,
      to
      the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DOV
      Pharmaceutical, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in
      the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of DOV Pharmaceutical, Inc.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      DOV and will be retained by DOV and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/ Arnold
                S. LippaArnold
                S. LippaChairman
                  of the Board
                August
                  9, 2005





Note :
      As
      announced in registrant’s current report on Form 8-K filed on July 6,
      2005, Dr. Leslie Hudson became president and chief executive officer on July
      28,
      2005, vice Dr. Lippa, who was chairman of the board and president and chief
      executive officer until the date Dr. Hudson commenced employment. Dr. Lippa
      served as registrant’s principal executive officer as of June 30, 2005, the last
      day of the fiscal quarter to which this quarterly report on Form 10-Q relates,
      and through much of the process of preparing this quarterly report, and, as
      such, is signing this quarterly report in such capacity. Dr. Hudson now serves
      as chief executive officer.




This
        certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except
        to the
        extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
        of
        Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Such
        certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
        filing
        under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange
        Act,
        except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
        reference.
No. 11-486.

#### Louis Daidone, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1036, 132 S. Ct. 598,

181 L. Ed. 2d 424,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8226.

November 14, 2011.

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

Same case below, 422 Fed. Appx. 26.
No. 11-6885.

#### Bobby M. Ellis, Petitioner v. David Parker, Warden.

565 U.S. 1118, 132 S. Ct. 1011,

181 L. Ed. 2d 748,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 178.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 426 Fed. Appx. 683.