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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 757 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 757

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 3, 2023.
    Resolved, That the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives is 
hereby declared to be vacant.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Daniel ESPINOZA VILLANUEVA; Candelaria Hernandez Villanueva, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-70469,

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 19, 2004.

Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Ernesto H, Molina, Jr., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Espinoza Villanueva and Candelaria Hernandez Villanueva, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of their applications for cancellation of removal and its order denying their motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s August 6, 2002 order dismissing the Villanuevas’ appeal because they failed to file their petition for review within 30 days of the issuance of that order. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996) (holding the finality of a BIA order is not affected by a subsequent motion to reconsider).

We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Villanuevas’ motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel, because the Villanuevas failed to show how counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced them. *See id.*at 899-900 (“Prejudice results when the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings.”) (internal quotations omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Serena CHERRY, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION and East Bay NE LLC, Appellees.

CASE NO. 1D17-1366

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 4, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 668 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 668

     Authorizing two Members to serve as joint sponsors of a bill, 
resolution, or joint resolution in the House of Representatives if one 
  of the Members is from the majority party and the other is from the 
                            minority party.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 1, 2023

   Mr. Cleaver (for himself, Mrs. Kim of California, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. 
     Timmons, Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Carey) submitted the following 
        resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Authorizing two Members to serve as joint sponsors of a bill, 
resolution, or joint resolution in the House of Representatives if one 
  of the Members is from the majority party and the other is from the 
                            minority party.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This resolution may be cited as the ``Building Unity through Dual 
Sponsors Resolution'' or the ``BUDS Resolution''.

SEC. 2. JOINT SPONSORSHIP OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS.

    (a) Authorizing Joint Sponsorship.--Clause 7 of rule XII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end 
the following new paragraph:
    ``(d) A public bill or public resolution may be sponsored jointly 
by two Members, including the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner, 
if one of the Members is from the majority party and the other Member 
is from the minority party.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Authority To Name 
Cosponsors.--Clause 7(b)(1) of rule XII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by inserting after the first sentence the 
following: ``In the case of a public bill or public resolution which is 
sponsored jointly by two Members pursuant to paragraph (d), both of the 
sponsors may name cosponsors.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment Relating to Submission of Constitutional 
Authority Statement.--Clause 7(c)(1) of rule XII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives is amended by striking ``the sponsor submits'' 
and inserting ``the sponsor submits (or, in the case of a public bill 
or public resolution which is sponsored jointly by two Members pursuant 
to paragraph (d), both of the sponsors submit)''.
                                 <all>
```
# Journal officiel C 218A/6 se

| | ISSN 1725-2431 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 218A |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 48e année6 septembre 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2431

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 218A

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

48e année6 septembre 2005

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Informations |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 218A/1 | Publication d'un avis de vacance pour un poste de directeur — (grade A*14) (article 29, paragraphe 2, du statut) — COM/2005/10003 | 1 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

III   Informations

Commission

2005/C 218A/1

Publication d'un avis de vacance pour un poste de directeur — (grade A*14) (article 29, paragraphe 2, du statut) — COM/2005/10003

1

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

III Informations

Commission

| 6.9.2005 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | CA 218/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2005

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

CA 218/1

---

Publication d'un avis de vacance pour un poste de

DIRECTEUR

(grade A*14)

(article 29, paragraphe 2, du statut)

COM/2005/10003

(2005/C 218 A/01)

La Commission a l'intention de nommer un directeur à l'Institut pour la santé et la protection des consommateurs de la direction générale du Centre commun de recherche, à Ispra (Italie).

Pour toute précision complémentaire concernant le poste à pourvoir, les critères de sélection et les conditions de candidature, veuillez consulter:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/personnel_administration/working_senior_mgt_fr.htm

Le fonctionnaire d'encadrement supérieur sera sélectionné et nommé par la Commission selon les procédures que celle-ci applique en matière de sélection et de recrutement. La rémunération et les conditions de travail sont celles prévues au statut pour les fonctionnaires de grade A*14 des Communautés européennes. La Commission applique une politique d'égalité des chances.

Ne sont susceptibles d'être retenus que les candidats qui possèdent un titre universitaire donnant accès aux études de doctorat, qui bénéficient d'une expérience professionnelle post-universitaire d'au moins quinze ans à un niveau correspondant aux qualifications précitées, dont au moins cinq ans dans un poste d'encadrement à haute responsabilité, et qui ont une connaissance approfondie d'une des langues officielles de l'Union européenne et une connaissance satisfaisante d'une autre de ces langues.

Pour postuler, il convient de s'inscrire par internet en allant sur le site web:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/personnel_administration/seniormanagementvacancies/index_fr.html

et de suivre les instructions relatives aux différentes étapes de la procédure. À noter que tout candidat doit disposer d'une adresse électronique qui servira d'identifiant à l'inscription.

La date limite d'inscription est fixée au 6 octobre 2005. Les inscriptions en ligne seront clôturées à 12 heures (midi), heure de Bruxelles.

---
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-060-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

64) IV-C-30 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:54 AM Sheet 64 of 232 

p.1 
P.2 

' -ta\ \ . 

\*9/>h * UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

l'ml(+f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

JAN I 5 !988 

OFFICE OP 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable John G. Rowland 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Rowland: 

This in response to your December 5, 1987 letter relaying 

the concerns of one of your constituents regarding EPA's 

regulatory proposal to require onboard canisters on new 

vehicles to control refueling emissions and to control the 

volatility of gasoline sold during the summertime. To assist 

you with your responses, I have enclosed a copy of our •* 

proposals for your review. Pages 31177-31182 explain EPA's? 

rationale for proposing onboard controls and pages 31285-31288 > 

explain EPA's rationale for proposing gasoline volatility 

control. If you would like further details of our analysis, 

please contact Phil Carlson or Tad Wysor of the Standards 

Development and Support Branch of the Emission Control 

Technology Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

(FTS 374-8270 or Commercial (313) 668-4270). 

Thank you for your letter. We will place the letter from 

Norbert E. Mitchell Company in our public docket and fully 

consider their comments in the next phase of our rulemaking 

process. 

Sincerely yourst.. 

•.. . J.:yJxx OX'A'llxJ nil 

LCiv'ALD E. ZINGER 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

Enclosures
exhibit10_1.htm


    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    


    Exhibit
      10(1)

    


    Summary
      of Director and Executive Officer Non-Plan Compensation

    


    Non-Employee
      Directors

    


    Non-employee
      directors of the Company are each paid $18,000 per year for their
      services.  The Chairmen of the Board of Directors and of the Audit
      Committee, Compensation Committee, and Nominating and Governance Committee
      of
      the Board each receive an additional $3,000 per year.

    


    Executive
      Officers

    


    The
      annual salaries of the executive officers for 2008 are as follows:

    


    Matthew
      Boyle, President and Chief Executive Officer

    --
      British Pounds 149,000

    


    Paul
      A.
      McPartlin, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

    --
      British Pounds 97,000

    


    Paul
      N.
      Farquhar, Vice President, Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer

    --
      British Pounds 94,000

    


    Annual
      cash bonuses will be determined at the end of the year.

    


    


    *
      * * *
      *

    


    Further
      information about compensation of directors and executive officers is found
      in
      the Company’s proxy statements on file with the Commission, as well as in
      periodic Form 8-K filings by the Company.
STATE EX REL. Daniel CHAMBERS v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2016-KH-2207

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 9, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. In addition, the application is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated his third application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Exhibit 10.3 



GoAmerica, Inc.
                        
433 Hackensack Avenue, 3rd Floor
                              
Hackensack, NJ 07601 



December 31, 2007 



Mr. Edmond Routhier 
President 
Hands
On Video Relay Services, Inc. 
590 Menlo Drive 
Rocklin, CA 95765-3708 



	 	         Re:  	  	Agreement
and Plan of Merger dated September 12, 2007, as amended by the side
letters dated September 17, 2007, October 8, 2007, October 11, 2007 and
November 6, 2007 (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among GoAmerica,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (“GoAmerica”), HOVRS Acquisition
Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
GoAmerica, Hands On Video Relay Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Hands On”), and Bill M. McDonagh as stockholders’ agent  






Dear Ed and Bill: 



        Section
8.1(b) of the Merger Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following: 



        “(b)
by Acquirer or HOVRS, if the Merger shall not have been consummated by January 10th, 2008
(the “Outside Date”); provided, however, that the right to terminate this Agreement under
this Section 8.1(b) shall not be available to any party whose failure to fulfill any
obligation under this Agreement has been the cause of or resulted in the failure of the
Merger to occur on or before such date;”  



        Except
as expressly set forth in the preceding sentence, the Merger Agreement shall remain
unmodified and in full force and effect. 



	   	Very truly yours, 
	 	 
	 	
      GOAMERICA, INC. 

      

	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Daniel R. Luis
      

    
	 	 	Daniel R. Luis, President 



ACKNOWLEDGED AND
AGREED TO THIS 31st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2007: 



	   	HANDS ON VIDEO RELAY SERVICES, INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Edmond Routhier
      

    
	 	 	Edmond Routhier, President
	 	 	 
	 	BILL M. McDONAGH,   

  as Stockholders’ Agent
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Bill M. McDonagh
      

    
	 	Bill M. McDonagh
-78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0

 38.0

 38.5

 39.0

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲

▲ ▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

07/20

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 20 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
Martin, Michael (OST) DO T .pS T -;:i GOO - 8c^l ^ ^ 

From: Zillman, Donald Norman [donald.zillman@umpi.edu] 

Sent: Tliursday, January 12, 2012 7:19 AlVI 

To: EAS (OST) 

Subject: Presque Isle Maine Essential Air Service 

I am pleased to comment on the proposals for continuing EAS to the Northern Maine Regional Airport. I write as the 

President of the University of Maine at Presque Isle, northern Maine's public university. The airport is an essential part of 

infrastructure for the university. Its services are used by prospective students and their parents, current students, staff 

and faculty, and the considerable numbers of business visitors to campus. The closest alternative is the 150 mile oneway drive to Bangor Airport. 

Service by the 34 seat planes currently serving the airport is highly necessary. Our visitors often come in groups that 

make smaller capacity planes of limited use. The limited range of smaller planes also is a problem since many of the 

visitors are coming from around the country and overseas and would find an additional stop in Maine to be difficult on tight 

schedules. 

Please keep these facts in mind as you reach a decision. . ,; v: / 

Thank you — 

Donald Zillman,President j> :^5i!;—i 

University of Maine at Presque Isle '^l^CD 

U J
Debra Darnice BROWN f/k/a Debra Darnice Andrews, Appellant, v. John Henry ANDREWS, Jr., Appellee.

No. 4D16-3264

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 1, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61292-61293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27911]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ18-7-000]


City of Colton, California; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 18, 2017, City of Colton, California 
submitted its tariff filing: City of Colton 2018 TRBAA/ETC Update to be 
effective 1/1/2018.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to

[[Page 61293]]

the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice 
of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
eLibrary link and is available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9adcdfc8d9d5f4f6f3f4ffc9efeaeaf5e8eedafcffe8f9b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e080b1c0d01202227202b1d3b3e3e213c3a0e282b3c2d60292138">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 8, 2018.

    Dated: December 20, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27911 Filed 12-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CELSION CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE § 1350

 

The undersigned hereby certifiesthat the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2008 of Celsion Corporation (the “Company”) filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| May 9,  2008 | *  /s/  Paul B. Susie*         |
|-------------------|------------------------------------------|
|              |   Paul  B. Susie               |
|              |   Principal  Financial Officer |

 

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6683

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. NIKITA RAY COLEMAN, a/k/a Heavy , Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III, District Judge. ( 4:19

- cr - 00017

- D

- 1 ; 4:21

- cv - 00142

- D )

Submitted : November 18, 2022 D ecided: November 30, 2022

Before WYNN and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Nikita Ray Coleman , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6683 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/30/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Nikita Ray Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not iss ue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district co urt’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Here, the district court summarily adopted the reasonin g in the Government ’ s memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss , offering no independent explanation for d ismissin g Coleman’s § 2255 motion. Although the district court should have enumerated the issues Coleman raised and explained its reasons for de nying relief, see United States v.
Marr , 856 F.2d 1471, 1472

- 73 (10th Cir. 1988), we are able to conclude through our independent review of the record that Coleman has not made the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6683 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/30/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6683 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/30/2022 Pg: 3 of 3