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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 52 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 52

       Providing for a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 4373.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 22, 2022

  Mr. Leahy submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
       Providing for a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 4373.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of H.R. 4373, the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives shall amend the title so as to read: ``Making further 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2023, and for other purposes.''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y   Document 518   Filed 11/17/08    Page 1 of 10   PageID 14070

Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y   Document 518   Filed 11/17/08    Page 2 of 10   PageID 14071

Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y   Document 518   Filed 11/17/08    Page 3 of 10   PageID 14072

Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y   Document 518   Filed 11/17/08    Page 4 of 10   PageID 14073

Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y   Document 518   Filed 11/17/08    Page 5 of 10   PageID 14074

Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y   Document 518   Filed 11/17/08    Page 6 of 10   PageID 14075

Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y   Document 518   Filed 11/17/08    Page 7 of 10   PageID 14076

Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y   Document 518   Filed 11/17/08    Page 8 of 10   PageID 14077

Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y   Document 518   Filed 11/17/08    Page 9 of 10   PageID 14078

Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y   Document 518   Filed 11/17/08    Page 10 of 10   PageID 14079
BANKSTON & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. v. The LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and Jeff Landry in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Louisiana

NO. 2019-CC-0504

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

*309Denied.
| (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 results of operations of the      Partnership. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    | Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P.Managing General Partner |                               |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                    |                                                      |                               |
|                                    | By: Reef Oil & Gas      Partners, GP, LLC             |                               |
|                                    |                                                      |                               |   |
| Date:  November      16, 2009 |                                                      | /s/      Michael J. Mauceli        |   |
|                                    |                                                      | Michael      J. Mauceli            |   |
|                                    |                                                      | Manager      and Member            |   |
|                                    |                                                      | (principal      executive officer) |   |

----
George WALKER, IV, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2464

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 1, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 30, 2019

George Walker, IV, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Roberts and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
1

Within the extended time provided by the Court.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

GEORGE WEBBER, §

Petitioner, §

 § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-594-Y

 §

COLE JETER, Warden, §

FMC–Fort Worth, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner George Webber under 28

U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has made an independent review of the

following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on

September 22, 2005; and

3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on October 25, 2005.1

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Webber’s

objections must be overruled, and that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction, for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's

findings and conclusions.

 Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of

the magistrate judge are ADOPTED.

 George Webber’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 be, and is hereby, DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

SIGNED October 28, 2005.

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00594-Y Document 11 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 159
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSE HERNANDEZ,

Respondent

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 17-00040-BLF

[Proposed] ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT 

Good cause having been shown by the United States upon its Application For Entry of Order To 

Show Cause Re: Contempt, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT respondent Jose Hernandez appear in 

person before this Court on July 27, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 3, 5th Floor, United States 

Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California, and then and there show cause, if he has any, 

why he should not be held in contempt for his failure to comply with the Order Requiring Respondent to 

Appear Before Revenue Officer to Give Testimony and Provide Items Described in Summonses filed 

April 12, 2017.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner serve a copy of this Order to Show Cause Re: 

Contempt upon said respondent in accordance with Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at 

least thirty-five (35) days before the Show Cause Hearing on July 27, 2017. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent may file and serve a written response to the 

Order To Show Cause Re: Contempt on or before July 6, 2017, supported by appropriate affidavit(s) or 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

declaration(s) in conformance with 28 U.S.C. Subsection 1746, as well as any motions he desires to 

make. The petitioner may file and serve a written reply to such response, if any, on or before July 13, 

2017. All motions and issues raised by the pleadings will be considered at the Show Cause hearing on 

July 27, 2017.

Dated: June 7, 2017

_______________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Beth Labson Freeman
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 29, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8405-8407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01877]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

[MCC FR 25-02]

Notice of First Amendment To Compact With the Federal Democratic 
Republic of Nepal; Correction

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) published a notice 
in the Federal Register of January 2, 2025. The notice contained an 
incorrect table.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of January 2, 2025, in FR Doc. 2024-31066, 
on page 119, in Annex I, Exhibit A to Annex II, Multi-Year Financial 
Plan Summary,

[[Page 8406]]

replace the table with the following complete table:

Annex I

Exhibit A to Annex II

Multi-Year Financial Plan Summary

BILLING CODE 9211-03-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JA25.006

[[Page 8407]]

    Dated: January 24, 2025.
Brian Finkelstein,
Acting Vice President, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-01877 Filed 1-28-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-C
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 12643]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Modern Art and Politics in Germany, 1910-1945: Masterworks from the Neue Nationalgalerie Berlin” at the Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas; the Albuquerque Museum, Albuquerque, New Mexico; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of December 11, 2015.                

Rafik K. Mansour,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2025-01983 Filed 1-30-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HASHIBO DEWITT LACY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

MARK NOOTH,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-36031

D.C. No. 6:08-cv-01300-AA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 9, 2011

Portland, Oregon

Before: FISHER, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Hashibo Lacy appeals from the district court’s judgment denying

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

FILED

JUL 01 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Lacy claims that the Oregon courts unreasonably applied Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979), contending that his conviction was not

supported by sufficient evidence. But Lacy has not shown that “the state court’s

ruling on [his] claim . . . was so lacking in justification that there was an error well

understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for

fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786–87 (2011).

There is at least “a reasonable argument,” id. at 788, that Lacy’s conviction

satisfies the Jackson standard. The Oregon courts reasonably could have

determined that there was sufficient evidence that Lacy “use[d] or threaten[ed] the

immediate use of physical force” against Killam with the requisite intent. Or. Rev.

Stat. § 164.395.

Because Lacy’s habeas petition does not raise a colorable federal claim, we

need not reach the question of whether Lacy exhausted his state remedies. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) (“An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on

the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies

available in the courts of the State.”); Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 624 (9th

Cir. 2005) (holding that a federal court may deny an unexhausted habeas petition

on the merits “when it is perfectly clear that the applicant does not raise even a

colorable federal claim”).
3

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Craig R. Ramsey,certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-Q of Marquee Holdings Inc.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)               Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)              Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)               Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a)               All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)              Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: August 7, 2007 | /s/ Craig R. Ramsey          |
|---------------------------|------------------------------|
|                      | Craig R. Ramsey              |
|                      | Executive Vice President and |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer      |

 

----
www.rti.org RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. RTI and the RTI logo are U.S. registered trademarks of Research Triangle Institute.

From Data Collection to 

Estimation: Highlights of 

Survey Lifecycle Issues from 

FoodAPS

Discussant: Stephanie Zimmer
FoodAPS Overview

o FoodAPS (1) conducted in 2012-2013

o Now exploring a new data collection implementing a web-based tool

o Pilot test (ACDM) implemented to examine modernization of study to 

transition from food diaries to web-based data collection

• Adam Kaderabek – likelihood respondents will provide useful receipts

• Lin Wang – app usability

• Clare Milburn – quality of databases for food item details

• Katherine Li – improving SAE estimates to enable more local estimates
Is “Proof of Purchase” Really Proof? - Kaderabek

o Examined relationship between respondent characteristics and likelihood 

of submitting itemized receipt

o Model used event level, respondent level, and household level variables

o How is this model actionable?

• Can receipts replace manual entry for some class of respondents/events?

• Can messaging be modified to encourage more to submit receipts when 

possible?

o How does receipt data compare to manually entered data? Future area to 

research
App Usability Evaluation – Wang

o Replacing handwritten diaries with computerized collection

o Usability test examined effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction

o Usability test group includes seniors and those receiving SNAP 

overwhelmingly

o Test went very well. These were eager participants (not randomly 

sampled). How will general population differ?

o Connecting food acquisitions to stops. 

• How did pandemic impact this? Some people are home ALL the time

• Recalling a delivery purchase isn’t tied to a “stop” mentally
Data Quality of Databases with Food Item Information - Milburn

o Attempt to improve data quality of food quantity and nutrition by having 

FoodLogger link to databases to find food products

o Databases for food items –IRI, FoodData Central, and Nutritionix

• Only IRI included total package size but isn’t timely

• FoodData Central is timely but not accurate sometimes

• Can you combine sources?

o Databases for places -

• None are good at food banks – wouldn’t food bank items still have UPCs 

though?

• No source is ideal otherwise, so place type will be entered manually

• How are food items entered at these places?
SAE for Food Insecurity - Li

o Method 1: Weighted analysis with jacknife replication

o Method 2: Synthetic population generation analysis (weighted finite 

population Bayesian bootstrap [WFPBB])

o Compared results to each other and CPS

• Point estimates are similar but SEs larger for Method 2

• CPS has its own sampling error, is this considered?

o MRP considered in future to incorporate more variables. 

• What about area-level models?
Roy HOLMES, Appellant, v. Andrea HULBERT, Carolee Watson and Russell Watson, Appellees.

No. 4D18-2879

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 30, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 China Housing & Land Development,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:





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 results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated:
      October 30, 2009
            By:
            /s/Cangsang
      HuangCangsang
      HuangChief
      Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Form 10-QSB of Pricester.com, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward
Dillon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 Company.




/s/ Edward C. Dillon
--------------------
Edward C. Dillon,
Chief Executive Officer
November 13, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.