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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1899 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1899

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend to all veterans with a 
  serious service-connected injury eligibility to participate in the 
                   family caregiver services program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2015

 Mrs. Lawrence (for herself and Mrs. Bustos) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend to all veterans with a 
  serious service-connected injury eligibility to participate in the 
                   family caregiver services program.

    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 ``Caregivers Expansion and Improvement 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION TO ALL VETERANS WITH A SERIOUS SERVICE-CONNECTED 
              DISABILITY OF ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN FAMILY 
              CAREGIVER PROGRAM.

    Section 1720G(a)(2)(B) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``on or after September 11, 2001''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John R. Judd, Chief Financial Officer of ATS Medical, Inc., certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

The Annual Report of Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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


Date:     March 14, 2005

          /s/  John R. Judd
          ---------------------------------
Name:     John R. Judd
Title:    Chief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

______________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 6, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

126121(64) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

NATIONAL WINE & SPIRITS, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. INC., NWS MICHIGAN, INC., and Stephen J. Markman, NATIONAL WINE & SPIRITS, L.L.C., Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 SC: 126121 

v CoA: 243524

 Ingham CC: 02-000013-CZ 

STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Defendant-Appellee,

and 

MICHIGAN BEER & WINE 

WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION, 

Intervening Defendant-Appellee. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plaintiffs-appellants for extension of 

the time for filing their brief and appendix is considered and it is GRANTED. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 6, 2006 

Clerk
NUMBER 13-12-00130-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE CYPRESS TEXAS LLOYDS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator, Cypress Texas Lloyds, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above 

cause on February 21, 2012, seeking relief from an order denying a motion to compel 

appraisal. The Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of 

mandamus from the real party in interest, Abel Zapata. Currently pending before the 

Court is relator’s unopposed motion to abate this proceeding on grounds that the parties 

have reached a preliminary settlement in the underlying case. Relator requests that we 

 

1

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is 

not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

abate this proceeding for sixty days to allow adequate time for the settlement to be 

finalized. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion to abate, is of the 

opinion that the matter should instead be dismissed without prejudice to relator’s right to 

refile the petition for writ of mandamus if necessary. If the settlement is not concluded 

and relator seeks to refile the petition for writ of mandamus, the Court will allow the 

matter to be resubmitted to the Court on the pleadings already filed in this cause and 

will not assess filing fees for those pleadings. Accordingly, relator’s motion to abate is 

DENIED and the petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED without prejudice. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Pending motions, if any, are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

7th day of August, 2012.
# L_2009003EN.01000301.xml

| 7.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 3/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 3/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 6/2009

of 6 January 2009

establishing that certain limits for issuing import licences for sugar products under tariff quotas and preferential agreements are no longer reached

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 of 28 June 2006 laying down detailed rules of application for the 2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008/09 marketing years for the import and refining of sugar products under certain tariff quotas and preferential agreements (2), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The records referred to in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 show that quantities of sugar are still available for the obligations laid down under Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 bearing the serial number 09.4319. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The records referred to in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 show that quantities of sugar are still available for the obligations laid down under Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 bearing the serial number 09.4319.

| (2) | Under these circumstances, the Commission must indicate that the limits concerned are no longer reached, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Under these circumstances, the Commission must indicate that the limits concerned are no longer reached,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The limits for the obligations laid down under Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 950/2006 bearing the serial number 09.4319 are no longer reached.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 January 2009.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 January 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 178, 1.7.2006, p. 1.

2

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR MANUEL AGUILAR

ORELLANA, AKA Victor Aguilar, AKA Victor Manuel Orellana Aguilar,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72683 Agency No. A095

- 729

- 459

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016 **
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Victor Manuel Aguilar

- Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

AUG 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 72683

application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Tortur e (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v.

Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Su bstantial evidence supports the BIA ’s finding that Aguilar

- Orellana failed

to establish his past experiences with gang members in El Salvador rose to the level of persecution, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft , 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003 ),

or that it is more l ikely than not he would be persecuted in El Salvador on account of a protected ground, s ee Parussimova v. Mukasey , 555 F.3d 734, 740

- 41 (9th Cir. 2009). We lack jurisdiction to consider the particular social group Aguilar

Orellana proposes for the first t ime in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 67 7

- 7 8 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claim in administrative proceedings below). Thus, Aguilar

- Orellana’s withholding of

removal claim fails.

S ubstantial evidence also supports th e BIA ’s denial of Aguilar

- Orellana’s CAT claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if3 14

- 72683

returned to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 10 66, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7535

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KENNETH LAMONT REAMS, a/k/a HOT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cr - 00426

- CCE

- 1; 1:16

- cv 00510

- CCE

- LPA )

Submitted : January 18, 2018 Decided: January 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kenneth Lamont Reams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller, Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorneys, OF FICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Lamont Reams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of t he magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the pris oner 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. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and a rgument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
SCPW-18-0000162

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

GALINA OGEONE, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE JEFFREY P. CRABTREE, Judge of the Circuit Court of

the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

DENTIST LESLIE AU, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CIV. NOS. 16-1-1347-7 and 16-1-1348-7)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Galina Ogeone’s

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on March 16, 2018, the

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and

the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that

she is entitled to an extraordinary writ. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91

Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to

relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-18-0000162

04-APR-2018

08:27 AM
alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; where a court has

discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or

control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has

acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her

jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of

discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before

the court under circumstances in which he or she has a legal duty

to act). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 4, 2018.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, Steven E. West, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this transition report on Form 10-K of SunterraCorporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain 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 thisreport; 

 

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, 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. evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion 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

 

c. disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control of financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control of financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

 

Chief Financial Officer 

 

Dated: December 14, 2004
#### McKERNAN v. KESSLER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

January 31, 1896.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 18.1


                                 March 25, 1998

Thrift Management, Inc.
3141 West Hallandale Beach Boulevard
Hallandale, Florida 33009

Gentlemen:

         Pursuant to your request we have read the statements contained in Note
3 to the consolidated financial statements included in the Form 10-KSB of Thrift
Management, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997. As stated in Note 3,
"Merchandise inventory has been valued using the retail method of accounting as
of December 31, 1997. This accounting principle was adopted by the Company on
October 1, 1997. Merchandise inventory in prior periods and years was valued
using the specific identification method" and "The newly adopted accounting
principle is preferable in the circumstances due to cost benefit considerations
of applying the specific identification method of accounting for inventories in
the Company's current operating environment."

         You have requested a letter from us as your independent certified
public accountants that you can file with the Securities and Exchange Commission
indicating whether or not we believe the aforementioned change in method of
accounting is preferable under your particular circumstances. This letter is
submitted to you solely for that purpose.

         Based on our reading of the information set forth in the Form 10-KSB of
Thrift Management, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997, we believe (a) the
newly adopted accounting principle is a generally accepted accounting principle,
(b) the method of accounting for the effect of the change is in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles, (c) the Company has justified the use
of the newly adopted accounting principle on the basis that it is preferable as
required by Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20 and the Company's
justification for the change is reasonable, and (d) there are no unusual
circumstances such that the selection and application of the newly adopted
accounting principle would make the financial statements taken as a whole
misleading. We have not examined any financial statements of Thrift Management,
Inc. as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 1997.

         While there are a number of methods of pricing inventories that are
acceptable under generally accepted accounting principles, we believe that,
under your particular circumstances, the aforementioned change is to a
preferable alternative accounting principle.


                               Very truly yours,


                               BERKOWITZ DICK POLLACK & BRANT, LLP
# C_2009123EN.01001101.xml

| 3.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/11

---

COUNCIL DECISION

COUNCIL DECISION

of 25 May 2009

appointing Maltese members and a Maltese alternate member of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

2009/C 123/05

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1), and in particular Articles 26 and 27 thereof,

1

Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decision of 25 September 2008 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period from 25 September 2008 to 24 September 2010, with the exception of certain members including the Maltese members and alternate members in the category of government representatives. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decision of 25 September 2008 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period from 25 September 2008 to 24 September 2010, with the exception of certain members including the Maltese members and alternate members in the category of government representatives.

2

| (2) | The Maltese Government has submitted nominations for a number of posts to be filled, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Maltese Government has submitted nominations for a number of posts to be filled,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The following are hereby appointed members and an alternate member of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period ending on 24 September 2010:

REPRESENTATIVES OF GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVES OF GOVERNMENT

| Country | Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Malta | Mr Joseph MIZZI
  Ms Josephine FARRUGIA | Mr Anthony BUTTIGIEG |

Country

Members

Alternates

Malta

Mr Joseph MIZZI

Ms Josephine FARRUGIA

Mr Anthony BUTTIGIEG

Done at Brussels, 25 May 2009.

For the Council

The President

J. ŠEBESTA

---

(1)  OJ L 257, 18.10.1968, p. 2.

1

(2)  OJ C 253, 4.10.2008, p. 7.

2

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 August 19, 2016

Order 

Clerk

August 19, 2016

153796(49)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 153796

v COA: 325166

Kalamazoo CC: 2013-001818-FC

DEONDRA LAMONT LIGGION, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to temporarily 

hold the case in abeyance to allow him to file a motion for remand on or before 

September 5, 2016, is GRANTED. The temporary abeyance shall end on September 6, 

2016, or after the filing of the motion to remand, whichever occurs first.