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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1897 

To amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to make 

technical corrections to law governing grazing permits and leases on 

National Forest System lands. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2015 

Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia (for himself and Mr. LABRADOR) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 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 Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976 to make technical corrections to law governing 

grazing permits and leases on National Forest System 

lands. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1897 IH

1 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO LAW GOV2 ERNING GRAZING PERMITS AND LEASES ON 

3 NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS. 

4 Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Manage5 ment Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘by the Sec7 retary of Agriculture, with respect to lands within 

8 National Forests in the sixteen contiguous Western 

9 States’’ and inserting ‘‘on National Forest System 

10 land by the Secretary of Agriculture (notwith11 standing, for purposes of this section, the definition 

12 in section 103(p))’’; 

13 (2) in subsection (c)(2)— 

14 (A) by inserting ‘‘has been waived,’’ after 

15 ‘‘expired,’’; and 

16 (B) by striking ‘‘the permit or lease re17 quired’’ and inserting ‘‘the allotment manage18 ment plan, permit, or lease required’’; and 

19 (3) in subsection (h)(1)— 

20 (A) by striking ‘‘a grazing permit or lease’’ 

21 in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) and 

22 inserting ‘‘an allotment management plan or 

23 grazing permit or lease’’; 

24 (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘per25 mit or lease’’ and inserting ‘‘allotment manage26 ment plan, permit, or lease’’; and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1897 IH

1 (C) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking 

2 ‘‘lease or permit’’ and inserting ‘‘allotment 

3 management plan, permit, or lease’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6760

THERON JOHNNY MAXTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ANN ASKINS, Nurse at Kirkland Correctional

Institution; F. WILLIAMS, Nurse at Kirkland

Correctional Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-782-3-6BC)

Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theron Johnny Maxton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint for failing

to comply with a pre-filing injunction. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Maxton v. Askins, No. CA96-782-3-6BC (D.S.C. Apr. 17, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2010095EN.01000101.xml

| 15.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/1

---

COMMISSION OPINION

of 14 April 2010

relating to the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from Building 443.26 operated by General Electric Healthcare Ltd (formerly Amersham plc) at the Harwell International Business Centre in the United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(only the English text is authentic)

2010/C 95/01

On 11 November 2009, the European Commission received from the British Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from Building 443.26 operated by General Electric Healthcare Ltd (formerly Amersham plc).

On the basis of these data and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

| 1. | The distance between the facility and the nearest Member State, in this case France, is approximately 225 km. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The distance between the facility and the nearest Member State, in this case France, is approximately 225 km.

| 2. | The planned modification concerns an envisaged increase in the authorised discharge limit for airborne radon-222. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The planned modification concerns an envisaged increase in the authorised discharge limit for airborne radon-222.

| 3. | Under normal operating conditions, the planned modification will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Under normal operating conditions, the planned modification will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in another Member State.

| 4. | In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents, which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in another Member State will not be liable to affect the health of the population. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents, which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in another Member State will not be liable to affect the health of the population.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form arising from Building 443.26, operated by General Electric Healthcare Ltd (formerly Amersham plc), located at the Harwell International Business Centre in the United Kingdom, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

Done at Brussels, 14 April 2010.

For the Commission

Günther OETTINGER

Member of the Commission

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KEITH PUGH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 524 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of June, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Order filed September 27, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-00052-CV

____________

COMPASS BANK, Appellant

V.

MARHABA PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 935955

ORDER

On February 9, 2010, this court was notified that appellee, Marhaba Partners 

Limited Partnership, petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy in the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, under cause number 10-30227. On 

February 18, 2010, this court ordered the cause abated and treated as a closed case. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. 

Following the abatement, this court has heard nothing from the parties. According

to the bankruptcy court PACER system, the bankruptcy case was closed on July 1, 2011. 
2

Accordingly, unless within 20 days of the date of this order, any party to the appeal files a 

motion demonstrating good cause to retain this appeal, this appeal will be reinstated and 

dismissed for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

3, I lo-er-- Do 1 81 f'l\9 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ,£ase Ne,; J:Hi er 90453 ,A.f I--

Plaintiff, ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL 

v. 

Jamie Faye Cobat, 

Defendant. 

IT IS ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender is hereby appointed to act as counsel 

for Jamie Faye Cobat, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006A(c). Specifically, the Federal Public Defender 

has designated AFPD Mark Ahlemeyer as counsel to be appointed . 

. A~ DATED this_~_ day of September 2017. 

Lisa Hay/Mark Ahlcmcy 

Attorney for Defenda t 

Page 1 ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL 

The Honorable Michael 

United States District Co 

Case 3:16-cr-00187-MO Document 116 Filed 09/01/17 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edundabira O. Ojo, Appellant.

[948 NYS2d 841]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-11-0000646 27-JUN-2014 08:55 AM
Exhibit 13.(a).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 Annual Report of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our 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.











By: /s/ David Wiessman


Name: David Wiessman


Title: Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Operating Decision Maker








By: /s/ Zeev Vurembrand


Name: Zeev Vurembrand


Title: Chief Executive Officer








By: /s/ Dror Moran


Name: Dror Moran


Title: Chief Financial Officer








Date: June 30, 2011
#### MAZANEC v. MANHATTAN INV. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 14, 1896.)

No opinion. Motion denied, on payment of $10 costs. See 38 N. Y. Supp. 20.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1879 

To allow homeowners facing foreclosure to avoid deficiency judgments, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 16, 2015 

Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico (for herself and Mr. CARTWRIGHT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To allow homeowners facing foreclosure to avoid deficiency 

judgments, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Foreclosure Fairness 

5 Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFICIENCY JUDGMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date of enact8 ment of this Act, in the case of any federally related mort9 gage loan made after that date, a court may not enter 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1879 IH

1 a deficiency judgment pertaining to that loan after the 

2 date of any foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property. 

3 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

4 shall be construed to preempt any more restrictive State 

5 or local law pertaining to deficiency judgments. 

6 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT.—The term ‘‘defi9 ciency judgment’’ means any order by a court en10 tered after a sale of a property subject to a federally 

11 related mortgage that has been foreclosed on, requir12 ing the payment by the mortgagor of an amount 

13 equal to any balance remaining on the mortgage 

14 loan after the foreclosure sale. 

15 (2) FEDERALLY RELATED MORTGAGE LOAN.— 

16 The term ‘‘federally related mortgage loan’’ has the 

17 meaning given such term under section 3 of the Real 

18 Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 

19 U.S.C. 2602). 

20 (3) MORTGAGED PROPERTY.—The term ‘‘mort21 gaged property’’ means, with respect to a federally 

22 related mortgage loan, the residential real property 

23 that is subject to the lien securing such mortgage 

24 loan. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Southern Insect Management Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Southern Insect Management Research People







Shane  Scheibener    Biological Science Technician /ARSUserFiles/57201/Shane Scheibener.jpg
 Contact Information USDA-ARSSouthern Insect Management Research Unit141 Experiment Station RoadP.O. Box 346Stoneville, MS 38776Ph: (662) 686-5269Fax: (662) 686-5421


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
**EXHIBIT 23.1**  **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration    Statements on    Form S-3    (Nos.    333-42090,333-51764    and    333-117182),    and Registration Statements on    Form S-8    (Nos.    333-17189    and    333-37568)    of our report dated November 6, 2006, relating to the    financial statements of PYR Energy Corporation appearing in this    Annual Report on    Form 10-KSB    of PYR Energy Corporation for the years ended August 31,    2006 and 2005.     HEIN & Associates LLP     Denver, Colorado    November 20, 2006
#### Days Impex Limited, Appellant, v Doha Bank, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Bank of America et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Submitted November 20, 2006;

decided February 13, 2007

*852Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Jones taking no part.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01

                    SUBSIDIARIES* OF CARAUSTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                    STATE OF
                    NAME                          INCORPORATION      TRADE, D/B/A NAMES
                    ----                       -------------------   -------------------
<S>                                            <C>                   <C>
Austell Holding Company, LLC                         Georgia
Camden Paperboard Corporation                      New Jersey
Caraustar, G.P. (a general partnership)          South Carolina
Caraustar Custom Packaging Group, Inc.              Delaware
Caraustar Custom Packaging Group (Maryland),
  Inc.                                              Maryland
Caraustar Design Tubes, Inc.                         Canada
Caraustar Industrial Canada, Inc.                    Canada
Caraustar Industrial & Consumer Products
  Group, Inc.                                       Delaware
Caraustar Industrial & Consumer Products       Leyland, Lancaster,
  Group, Ltd.                                    United Kingdom
Caraustar Mill Group, Inc.                            Ohio
Caraustar Paper Tube de Mexico (65% owned)           Mexico
Caraustar Recovered Fiber Group, Inc.               Delaware
Chicago Paperboard Corporation                      Illinois
CICPG, LLC.                                      North Carolina
Design Tubes Limited Ltd.                            Canada
Federal Transport, Inc.                               Ohio
Gypsum MGC, Inc.                                    Delaware
Halifax Paper Board Company, Inc.                North Carolina
McQueeny Gypsum Company                             Delaware
McQueeny Gypsum Company, LLC                        Delaware
Paragon Plastics, Inc. (80% owned)               South Carolina
PBL Inc.                                            Delaware                  **
RECCMG, LLC.                                         Georgia
Sprague Paperboard, Inc.                           Connecticut
Paradigm Chemical & Consulting, LLC                  Georgia
</Table>

*  Each subsidiary is wholly-owned (directly or, indirectly) by Caraustar
   Industries, Inc. unless otherwise indicated.

** Does business in Indiana as PBL Indiana Inc.
NO. 07-02-0464-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	MARCH 10, 2003

	______________________________

	PATRICIA LYNN KYLES,

			Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

			Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

	NO. 86473; HON. CHARLES D. CARVER, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.*

	Patricia Lynn Kyles (appellant) appeals her conviction for misdemeanor theft.  The clerk’s record was filed on October 15, 2002.  The reporter’s record was filed on December 12, 2002.  Thus, appellant’s brief was due on January 13, 2003.  However, one was not filed on that date.  By letter dated January 21, 2003, we notified appellant’s counsel, Norman Desmarais, of the expired deadline and directed him to respond to our notification of same by Friday, January 31, 2003, or the appeal would be abated to the trial court pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8.   January 31, 2003, passed without appellant submitting any response to our notice. 

	Consequently, we abated this appeal and remanded the cause to the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County (trial court) and directed that it conduct a hearing to assess, among other things, whether the appellant desired to prosecute the appeal.  At that hearing, appellant informed the trial court that she no longer did.  Furthermore, appellant’s representations were contained in a supplemental clerk’s record which was filed on March 5, 2003.

	Although we have no motion to dismiss before us as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), Rule 2 of the same rules permits us to suspend the operation of an existing rule.  Tex. R. App. P. 2; see Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d).  Therefore, pursuant to Rule 2, and because appellant has clearly revealed her desire to forego appeal, we suspend Rule 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal based upon appellant’s representation to the trial court.

	Having so dismissed the appeal, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. 

							Brian Quinn

							    Justice

Do not publish.
NO. 07-11-00322-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E AUGUST 24, 2011

IN RE JAIME HERNANDEZ MUNIZ, RELATOR

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. and BOYD, S.J. 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Jamie Hernandez Muniz, a prison inmate appearing pro se, has filed a motion for leave to file a pet ition for writ of mandamus 2 and a petition for writ of mandamus. In his petition, relator complains that the trial court de nied him due process of law by signing orders directing withdrawal of funds from his trust account. For the reasons that follow, we wil l deny relator’s petition.

Relator has not filed a record or appendi x with his petition. In an original mandamus proceeding, the petition must be acco mpanied by a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to a rela tor’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1). Additionally, the petition states

1 John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Se venth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.

2 Motions for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus ar e no longer required. Tex. R. App. P. 52. 1 Notes and Comments.2 facts not supported by evidence included in an appendix or record. A relator’s burden on mandamus includes meeting t he requirement that “[e]very statement of fact in the petition [is] supported by citation to comp etent evidence includ ed in the appendix or record.” Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(g). In shor t, a relator must supply a record sufficient to establish the right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). Relator has not done so and we are therefore unable to determine whether he is

entitled to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied and his motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot. In denying relator’s petition, we express no opinion on the merits of his compla int, or whether it is properly reviewable by petition for writ of mandamus. See Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 321 (Tex. 2009) (holding appellate review of a trial court’s or der denying an inmate’s motion challenging a withdrawal order is by appeal).

James T. Campbell Justice
Sand Trigger for

High‐flow Experimental Protocol

Paul Grams and Scott VanderKooiTWG MeetingJanuary 27, 2016
Implementation of HFE Proto

• GCMRC Project

Monitoring Prog

• Tracks tributa

and mainstem 

• Website prov

information o

accumulation during accou

• Shifting rating c

routing model b

– Used by Recla

determine mduration of h

“match” sand 
Sand Input Triggering Strategy:

HFEs follow Historical Timing of Paria and L

Colorado River Floods (Fall & Spring)

(High Flo
Fall & Spring Timing has Historical Precedent in 

of Natural Floods during Pre‐Dam Recor

Spring snowmelt 

Late fall rainfall/ runoff 

(High Flow Circular Chap
HFE Implementation Decision Pr

(High Flo
Anticipated Frequency of H

• Wright and Kennedy in HFE Circular

– Frequent fall (nearly every year)

– Much less frequent spring HFEs

• HFE Protocol EA (analyzed range of input

conditions and hydrology)

– Fall: 4 to 8 HFEs in 10 years

– Spring: 3 to 6 HFEs in 10 years

• LTEMP Alternatives (that extend protocol 

years)

– 17 to 25 HFEs in 20 years (maximum of 30 to 

– 77% in Fall
Current Marble Canyon sand accumulation rel

recent HFEs

Upper Marble Canyon Lower Marble C

Marble Canyon mass balance at + 990,000 metric tons for July 1, 2015 to Jan. 6, 2016

2012‐2014 HFE’s triggered at accumulations of 600,000 to 2,000,000 metric tons.