alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 14, 1979

79-41 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE

COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank

Board—Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1977 (5

U.S.C. App.)—Resignations—The President’s

Authority to Redesignate a Member as Chairman

This responds to the oral request of your Office for our views on the President’s power to redesignate a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank 

Board. The Board, established by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1947 (5 

U.S.C. App.; see also 12 U.S.C. § 1437), consists of three members appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

On April 20, 1979, the Chairman tendered his resignation effective June 

1, 1979. On May 1, 1979, the President accepted the resignation as Chairman and as a member of the Board. In a letter dated June 1, 1979, he 

notified the President that he had submitted his resignation only as Chairman, but not as a member. However, he expressed his willingness to continue to serve as Chairman until June 29, 1979, or until such earlier date as 

his resignation as a member and Chairman would be tendered. By letter 

dated June 6, 1979, the President noted that the letter of resignation of 

April 20 had applied only to the position of Chairman and not to membership on the Board. The President thereupon redesignated the member as 

Chairman of the Board until such time as his resignation as a member and 

Chairman was tendered.

It is our opinion that the President was authorized to redesignate the 

member as Chairman because he still was a member of the Board at that 

time.

It is true that the President’s letter of May 1, 1979 stated that he accepted the resignation as Chairman and member. But the resignation was 

only as Chairman and not as a member. The President, of course, has the 

power to remove a purely executive officer in the absence of a resignation. 

Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). However, in view of the bipartisan nature and the regulatory functions of the Board, it is questionable

248
whether the President has the same unrestricted power with respect to the 

members of the Board. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 

602 (1935); Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958). In any event, an 

intent to remove the Chairman as a member of the Board would be inconsistent with the highly complimentary and appreciative nature of the President’s letter of May 1, 1979. The “ acceptance” of the resignation as a 

member, therefore, was at most in the nature of a misunderstanding 

without any legal effect and did not terminate membership on the Board. 

Accordingly, the member was eligible to be redesignated as Chairman.

L a r r y A . H a m m o n d

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

249
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DERRICK HARRIS, 763436, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:04-CV-800-N

) ECF

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, TDCJ-CID, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that the

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are

adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Signed December 29, 2005.

_________________________________

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00800-N Document 11 Filed 12/29/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 40
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7367

HEYWARD EUGENE JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PHILLIP MCLEOD, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-4017) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: December 4, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Heyward Eugene Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Heyward Eugene Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Johnson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Johnson v. McLeod , No. CA-01-4017 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 29, 2002; entered Aug. 30, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
---

Exhibit 12.2


I, Ian Brown, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Madison Minerals Inc. (the “Company”); 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 annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officers 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 Company 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 Company, 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 Company’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 Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 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 Company’s ability to record, process, summarise 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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Date: February 28, 2013 Signed “Ian Brown”Ian Brown, Chief Financial Officer


---
EX PARTE Hector CARRANZA

1160810 (CR-15-1454)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Dante Christopher BALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3293

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Jason Richard KRATZER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jessica Lee HELMES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1110

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 06, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2018161EN.01001301.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius v Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa

(Case C-159/17) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Revocation of identification for VAT purposes - Obligation to pay VAT collected in the period during which the VAT identification number is revoked - Non-recognition of the right to deduct VAT relating to purchases made during that period))

(2018/C 161/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Întreprinderea Individuală Dobre M. Marius

Appellant:

Respondents: Ministerul Finanţelor Publice — A.N.A.F. — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii, A.N.A.F — D.G.R.F.P. Galaţi — A.J.F.P. Constanţa — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Fizice 2 Constanţa

Respondents:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167 to 169 and 179, Articles 213(1) and 214(1), and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows tax authorities to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax when it is established that, on account of the alleged infringements committed by that person, the tax authorities could not have access to the information necessary to establish that the substantive requirements giving rise to the right to deduct input value added tax paid by that taxable person have been satisfied or that that person acted fraudulently in order to enjoy that right, a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002






In connection with the Quarterly Report of James River
Coal Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Samuel M. Hopkins, II, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:






(1)
                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and(2)
                  The information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
      operations of the
registrant.







May 4,
2009




/s/     Samuel M. Hopkins,
      IISamuel M. Hopkins, IITitle:  Chief Accounting
      Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

THOMAS JEFFREY DAVIS,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 15-50118

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01206-R-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 4, 2016 

Pasadena, California

Before: FARRIS, BEA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

The United States appeals defendant Thomas Jeffery Davis’s 24-month

sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for engaging in business as

a manufacturer and dealer in firearms without registration, in violation of 26

U.S.C. § 5861(a), and for possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26

FILED

APR 18 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
U.S.C. § 5861(d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate

and remand for resentencing.

The government argues that the district court’s substantial downward

departure from the applicable Guidelines range was procedural error because the

sentence was chosen on the basis of clearly erroneous facts. The district court

explained its decision by stating that it felt that Davis was not in the business of

guns and that the confidential informant used by the government was the sole

source of the guns and the allegations against Davis. These assertions are not

supported by the record, which shows that Davis was the source of all firearms

involved and that he sold those firearms for profit. A sentence based on clearly

erroneous facts cannot be sustained. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th

Cir. 2008) (en banc).

VACATED and REMANDED.

2
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 132 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 132

 To amend the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act to 
             extend certain contract prepayment authority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

 Ms. Boebert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act to 
             extend certain contract prepayment authority.

    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 ``Western Water Accelerated Revenue 
Repayment Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE WIIN ACT.

    (a) Offsets and Water Storage Account.--Section 4011(d)(2) of the 
Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (Public Law 114-
322) is amended by inserting ``that are directed by project-specific 
statutes in effect prior to the date of passage of this Act to accounts 
other than the General Reclamation Fund'' before the semicolon.
    (b) Extension of Prepayment Authority.--Section 4013 of the Water 
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (Public Law 114-322) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
        semicolon;
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting 
        ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) section 4011.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2020045EN.01000901.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/9

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 November 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Adel Hamed (C-540/17), Amar Omar (C-541/17)

(Joined Cases C-540/17 and C-541/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Area of freedom, security and justice - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 33(2)(a) - Rejection by the authorities of a Member State of an application for asylum as being inadmissible because of the prior granting of refugee status in another Member State - Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Substantial risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment - Living conditions of those granted refugee status in that other Member State)

(2020/C 45/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant: Adel Hamed (C-540/17), Amar Omar (C-541/17)

Operative part of the order

Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from exercising the option under that provision to reject an application for international protection as being inadmissible on the ground that the applicant has already been granted refugee status by another Member State where the living conditions which the applicant could be expected to encounter as a refugee in that other Member State would expose him or her to a serious risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---
Danny Levon BROWN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0555

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 144 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 144

To provide that the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 
   does not apply to certain reports required to be submitted by the 
          Tennessee Valley Authority, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Cohen (for himself and Mr. Burchett) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 
   does not apply to certain reports required to be submitted by the 
          Tennessee Valley Authority, 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 ``Tennessee Valley Authority Salary 
Transparency Act''.

SEC. 2. SALARY DISCLOSURE; EXCEPTION TO REPORT ELIMINATION.

    Section 9 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 
831h) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``a financial 
        statement'' and all that follows through ``$1,500 a year'' and 
        inserting ``a report of the total number of employees at the 
        management level or above, to include all executives and board 
        members, that shall include the names, salaries, and duties of 
        such employees, that are receiving compensation at or greater 
        than the maximum rate of basic pay for grade GS-15 of the 
        General Schedule'';
            (2) by striking all that precedes ``The Board shall'' and 
        inserting the following:

``SEC. 9. FINANCIAL REPORTING.

    ``(a) Report on Compensation.--
            ``(1) In general.--''; and
            (3) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Exemption.--The information concerning salaries of 
        employees of the Corporation contained in, or filed with, the 
        report described in paragraph (1) is exempt from--
                    ``(A) disclosure under section 552(b)(3) of title 
                5, United States Code; and
                    ``(B) the requirements of the Access to 
                Congressionally Mandated Reports Act (Public Law 117-
                263).''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017014EN.01004602.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/46

---

Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Rühland v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamps)

(Case T-779/16)

(2017/C 014/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Lothar Rühland (Wendeburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 8 seasons design GmbH (Eschweiler, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design ‘Lamps’ No 1 402 341-0006

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2016 in Case R 878/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | dismiss the action for annulment of Community design No 0010402341-0006; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action for annulment of Community design No 0010402341-0006;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 6, of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 6, of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
Colette MARQUIS, a/k/a Colette Ann Marquis, a/k/a Colette Marquis-Kiliany, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-WL3, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5327

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Manufactured 

Housing

Our Duty to Serve Impact

Affordable 

Housing 

Preservation

Rural 

Housing

2018 – 2022

Pads with tenant site 

lease protections

84,068

BILLION

Total liquidity provided

MILLION

Units financed 

382.3 3.4

Units of affordable 

housing financed in 

high-needs rural regions

21,999

Shared equity programs 

certified to Duty to Serve 

standards

83

$

MULTIFAMILY SINGLE-FAMILY

SINGLE-FAMILY

MULTIFAMILY

ALL DTS MULTIFAMILY

Home loans purchased

251,630 

SINGLE-FAMILY

BILLION

In financing for properties 

advancing residential 

economic diversity

$3.3

MULTIFAMILY

Investments in Low-Income 

Housing Tax Credit properties 

in rural areas

379

MULTIFAMILY

Loans purchased in 

high-needs rural regions

81,530

SINGLE-FAMILY

BILLION

Liquidity provided to the 

manufactured housing market

MILLION

In investments to repair 

Real Estate Owned properties

NEARLY

$11.6 $576

SINGLE-FAMILY

MULTIFAMILY

Totals reflect 2018 – 2022. Fannie Mae’s 2022 results have not been validated by FHFA. After validation, they may differ from the results reported. 

In 2022, only purchase money mortgage single-family loans were included in total calculations.

Tenant site lease protections are 

N O W R EQ U I R ED AT 

all MH

PROPERTIES

© 2023 Fannie Mae
Case 3:04-cv-02165-H Document 18 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 66