alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-11009

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:16-cv-00690-RDP

MARNIKA LEWIS, 

ANTOIN ADAMS, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED 

PEOPLE, 

GREATER BIRMINGHAM MINISTRIES, 

MARIKA COLEMAN, 

JOHN ROGERS, 

PRISCILLA DUNN, 

JUANDALYNN GIVAN, 

LOUISE ALEXANDER, 

WILLIAM MUHAMMAD, 

RODGER SMITHERMAN, 

OLIVER ROBINSON, 

ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS, 

MARY MOORE, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 versus

GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA, 

in their Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Alabama, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA, 

in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Alabama, 

STATE OF ALABAMA, THE,

Case: 17-11009 Date Filed: 08/10/2020 Page: 1 of 3
2

BIRMINGHAM, CITY OF, THE, 

MAYOR OF BIRMINGHAM,

in his official Capacity as Mayor of Birmingham., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(August 10, 2020)

Before WILSON, JORDAN, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY,

∗ District Judge.

PER CURIAM: 

This panel’s opinion in Lewis v. Governor of Alabama, 896 F.3d 1282 (11th 

Cir. 2018), was vacated for rehearing en banc, 914 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2019). On 

rehearing, the en banc court addressed the employee-plaintiffs’ Article III standing 

to sue the Alabama Attorney General for Act No. 2016-18’s alleged violation of 

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Lewis v. Governor of 

Ala., 944 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2019) (en banc). It held that the “plaintiffs 

lack Article III standing to bring their equal-protection claim against the Alabama 

Attorney General,” and therefore did not consider the claim’s merits. Id. at 1306. 

The en banc court affirmed the panel opinion in part and remanded to the panel. 

∗ Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, 

sitting by designation.

Case: 17-11009 Date Filed: 08/10/2020 Page: 2 of 3
3

Id. For the reasons given in the en banc opinion, we affirm the district court’s 

dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims against the Alabama Attorney General for lack of 

jurisdiction. That reasoning applies equally to the plaintiffs’ standing to sue the 

State of Alabama, so we affirm the district court’s dismissal there too. And for the 

reasons we gave in the panel opinion—with which the en banc court expressed no 

disagreement—we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the City of Birmingham 

from the suit. See Lewis, 896 F.3d at 1291.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-11009 Date Filed: 08/10/2020 Page: 3 of 3
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - products_publications(45)
              - multimedia_audio(3)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(3)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - (-)news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - arizona(3)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(2)
              - florida(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - idaho(2)
              - louisiana(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(4)
              - nebraska(2)
              - nevada(2)
              - new mexico(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oregon(3)
              - (-)south dakota(1)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(2)
              - washington(3)
              - wyoming(3)

## By Year

National News Release        March 17, 2021        New Report Highlights Declining Sagebrush Ecosystem, Provides Foundation for Next Generation of Conservation and Management
IN RE the ROUGE HOUSE, LLC Appeal from Decision of State of Louisiana Dept. of Revenue, Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control Denting Alcoholic Beverage Permit

NO. 2018-OC-0910

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 28, 2018

Denied.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater

Filters

              - science_education(1)
              - products_publications(50)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(3)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        June 13, 2023        National Ocean Month: 10 Ocean Field Sites You’ve Got to “Sea” to Believe
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5827 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5827

    To exclude ``Choose and Cut'' Christmas tree producers from the 
       Christmas tree promotion, research, and information order.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 10, 2014

 Mr. McCaul (for himself, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Poe of Texas) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To exclude ``Choose and Cut'' Christmas tree producers from the 
       Christmas tree promotion, research, and information order.

    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 ``Christmas Tree Tax Exclusion Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF ``CHOOSE AND CUT'' CHRISTMAS TREE PRODUCERS FROM 
              THE CHRISTMAS TREE PROMOTION, RESEARCH, AND INFORMATION 
              ORDER.

    (a) Exclusion.--The Christmas tree promotion, research, and 
information order contained in part 1214 of title 7, Code of Federal 
Regulations, and issued by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the 
Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
7411 et seq.) shall not apply to any Choose and Cut Christmas tree 
producer with respect to Christmas trees produced by the producer and 
sold directly to final consumers.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Choose and cut christmas tree producer.--The term 
        ``Choose and Cut Christmas tree producer'' means a producer who 
        produces Christmas trees in the United States, allows consumers 
        to select a Christmas tree for purchase before the Christmas 
        tree is severed or cut from its roots, and sells that Christmas 
        tree directly to the final consumer.
            (2) Christmas tree.--The term ``Christmas tree'' means any 
        tree of the coniferous species, that is severed or cut from its 
        roots and marketed as a Christmas tree for holiday use.
            (3) Producer.--The term ``producer'' means any person who 
        is engaged in the production of Christmas trees in the United 
        States, and who owns, or shares the ownership and risk of loss 
        of the production of Christmas trees or a person who is engaged 
        in the business of producing, or causing to be domestically 
        produced, Christmas trees beyond personal use and having value 
        at first point of sale.
                                 <all>
```
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5490 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to require that 

no deference be given to the interpretation of consumer financial law 

by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, to define the scope 

of judicial review of Bureau actions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2016 

Mrs. LOVE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 

to require that no deference be given to the interpretation of consumer financial law by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, to define the scope of judicial review of Bureau actions, 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, 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5490 IH

1 SECTION 1. NO DEFERENCE TO THE INTERPRETATION OF 

2 CONSUMER FINANCIAL LAW BY THE BUREAU 

3 OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION. 

4 (a) NO DEFERENCE TO BUREAU INTERPRETATION

5 OVER THE INTERPRETATION OF ANOTHER AGENCY.— 

6 The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 

7 U.S.C. 5481 et seq.) is amended— 

8 (1) in section 1022(b)(4)— 

9 (A) by striking ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—’’; and 

10 (B) by striking subparagraph (B); and 

11 (2) in section 1061(b)(5)(E)— 

12 (A) by striking ‘‘affords the—’’ and all 

13 that follows through ‘‘(i) Federal Trade Com14 mission’’ and inserting ‘‘affords the Federal 

15 Trade Commission’’; 

16 (B) by striking ‘‘; or’’ and inserting a pe17 riod; and 

18 (C) by striking clause (ii). 

19 SEC. 2. SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF BUREAU ACTIONS. 

20 Section 1022 of the Consumer Financial Protection 

21 Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5512) is amended by adding at 

22 the end the following: 

23 ‘‘(e) SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY AC24 TIONS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 

25 any judicial review of an agency action of the Bureau pur26 suant to chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, to the 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5490 IH

1 extent necessary to decision and when presented, the re2 viewing court shall determine the meaning or applicability 

3 of the terms of an agency action of the Bureau and decide 

4 de novo all relevant questions of law, including the inter5 pretation of constitutional and statutory provisions, and 

6 rules made by the Bureau. Notwithstanding any other pro7 vision of law, this subsection shall apply in any action for 

8 judicial review of an agency action of the Bureau author9 ized under any provision of law. No law may exempt any 

10 such civil action from the application of this subsection 

11 except by specific reference to this subsection.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                             STRATOS LIGHTWAVE, INC.

                   Certification of Periodic Financial Report
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Stratos
Lightwave, Inc. (the "Company") certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the quarter ended October 31, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: December 16, 2002                       /s/ James W. McGinley
                                              ----------------------------------
                                               James W. McGinley
                                               President and Chief Executive
                                               Officer


Dated: December 16, 2002                       /s/ David A. Slack
                                              ----------------------------------
                                               David A. Slack
                                               Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 6
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of InterOil Corporation (the issuer);
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f) for the issuer and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;
 b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;
 c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and
 d.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the
audit committee of the issuers board of directors:
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 b.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the issuers internal control over financial reporting.
 Date:  March 27, 2009
    /s/ Phil E. MulacekPhil E. MulacekChief Executive Officer
**Exhibit32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theAmendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of South Dakota Soybean Processors, LLC(the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),each of the undersigned, Rodney G. Christianson and James A. Seurer, the ChiefExecutive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer), respectively, of the Company, certify,individually and not jointly pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of December 31,2003 (the last date of the period covered by the Report).

Dated: November 10,2005
|   | By     | /s/ Rodney G.  Christianson |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |   | Rodney G.  Christianson     |
|   |   | Chief Executive  Officer    |
|   |   |                        |
|   |   |                        |
|   | By     | /s/ James A.  Seurer        |
|   |   | James A. Seurer             |
|   |   | Chief Financial  Officer    |

----
STATE of Louisiana v. Mark LEFEVRE

NO. 2018-KK-0727

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 14, 2018

Denied.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0487 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-SW-056-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Kuriyakose M. PALLIPURATH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3325

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Cascading Hazards

Filters

## By Location

## By Year

              - 2024(14)
              - 2023(13)
              - 2022(6)
              - 2021(5)
              - (-)2019(1)

partnerUNAVCO
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Communications Plans

Filters

              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(4)
              - arizona(3)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(21)
              - colorado(3)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - florida(2)
              - georgia(1)
              - hawaii(2)
              - idaho(3)
              - illinois(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(4)
              - mississippi(1)
              - montana(3)
              - nebraska(3)
              - nevada(2)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(1)
              - north carolina(2)
              - oklahoma(3)
              - oregon(4)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(12)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(1)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - (-)utah(1)
              - virginia(2)
              - washington(11)
              - wisconsin(2)
              - wyoming(3)

## By Year

              - 2022(1)

staff profileRoseann Gonzales-Schreiner
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_faqs(4)
              - science_science(189)
              - products_data(130)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2007)
              - products_software(7)
              - products_web_tools(8)
              - multimedia_audio(82)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(78)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(4)
              - multimedia_before_after(5)
              - multimedia_image(196)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(145)
              - multimedia_image-141772(4)
              - multimedia_image-141774(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(22)
              - multimedia_image-141776(16)
              - multimedia_image-204460(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(2)
              - multimedia_video(229)
              - multimedia_video-149194(87)
              - multimedia_video-149195(54)
              - multimedia_video-149196(16)
              - multimedia_video-149197(15)
              - multimedia_video-149198(13)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149225(2)
              - documents_file(10)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149214(4)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149222(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149246(2)
              - news_news-149248(5)
              - news_news-149249(2)
              - news_news-149250(7)
              - news_newsletters(2)
              - news_other_news(36)
              - connect_staff_profiles(23)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(16)

## By Location

              - south carolina(1)

## By Year

Records        September 18, 2019        1983 G. Ohrig, M. Matson, D.F. McGinnis, and S.R. Schneider of the Nat

Podcasts        June 10, 2012        USGS CoreCast: Landslide Hazards

Podcasts        July 27, 2011        Climate Connections: Questions from North and South Carolina
Richardson VICTOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1658

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed September 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.