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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2212 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2212

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To take certain Federal lands located in Lassen County, California, 
into trust for the benefit of the Susanville Indian Rancheria, 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. LAND INTO TRUST FOR THE SUSANVILLE INDIAN RANCHERIA.

    (a) In General.--The land described in subsection (b) is hereby 
taken into trust for the benefit of the Susanville Indian Rancheria, 
subject to valid existing rights.
    (b) Land Description.--The land taken into trust pursuant to 
subsection (a) is the approximately 301 acres of Federal land under the 
administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management identified 
as ``Conveyance Boundary'' on the map titled ``Susanville Indian 
Rancheria Land Conveyance'' and dated December 31, 2014.
    (c) Gaming.--Class II and class III gaming under the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) shall not be allowed at any 
time on the land taken into trust pursuant to subsection (a).

            Passed the House of Representatives November 30, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2212

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To take certain Federal lands located in Lassen County, California, 
into trust for the benefit of the Susanville Indian Rancheria, and for 
                            other purposes.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL QUARTERS MARCH 31, 1998 AND 1997 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) 10-QSB/A.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          94,368
<SECURITIES>                                   196,455
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,250
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,584,595
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               826,618
<PP&E>                                         859,660
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,802
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,695,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,903,724
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    217,795
<COMMON>                                       183,546
<OTHER-SE>                                   (555,160)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,695,967
<SALES>                                         53,463
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,463
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  306,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               102,352
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              84,966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (338,405)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (355,791)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (355,791)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID T. PHILLIPS; JANE T. PHILLIPS, 

Petitioners-Appellants, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 20-70051 

Tax Ct. No. 7854-18L

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted March 16, 2021**

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. 

David T. Phillips and Jane T. Phillips appeal the decision of the Tax Court 

holding that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not abuse its discretion by 

rejecting their offer in compromise related to their 2012 and 2014 tax liabilities. 

We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo questions 

* 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

MAR 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-70051 

of law, and for an abuse of discretion the Commissioner’s rejection of an offer in 

compromise. Keller v. Comm’r, 568 F.3d 710, 716 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. 

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because taxpayers failed 

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Commissioner’s 

rejection of their settlement offer was an abuse of discretion. See id. at 717-18 

(computational errors by the Commissioner in rejecting taxpayers’ offer in 

compromise were not prejudicial and thus were not an abuse of discretion); Fargo 

v. Comm’r, 447 F.3d 706, 709-10 (9th Cir. 2006) (the IRS has discretion to decide 

whether to reject an offer in compromise after evaluating all facts and 

circumstances). 

We reject taxpayers’ contentions that the Commissioner abused its discretion 

by failing to comply with internal policies.

We do not consider taxpayers’ arguments or allegations raised for the first 

time on appeal because taxpayers have failed to demonstrate exceptional 

circumstances. See Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(“Absent exceptional circumstances, this court will not consider an argument that 

was not first raised in the Tax Court.”).

AFFIRMED.
#### HANNA, Appellant, v. LARMON et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 2, 1896.)

Action by David J. Hanna against William C. Larmon and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6669** 

DOREK EMANUEL HAYES , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:13

- cv - 00380

- RAJ

- DEM )

Submitted : July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Dorek Emanuel Hayes , Appellant Pro Se. John Watkins Blanton , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA , Richmond , Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dorek Emanuel Hayes seeks to appeal the district court’s order a dopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and de nying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a cir cuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (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). 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 prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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 Hayes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       8,616,305
<SECURITIES>                                 6,479,443
<RECEIVABLES>                                  164,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,416
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,086,656
<PP&E>                                       4,606,976
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,133,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,238,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,236,521
<BONDS>                                      4,230,720
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,570
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,751,778
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,238,589
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               615,519
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,403,056
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,983,785
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,635,963)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (12,635,963)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,635,963)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.96)


</TABLE>
BIG THOMPSON RIVER ABOVE CANYON MOUTH AT CEDAR COVE, CO Latitude: 40.415Longitude: -105.251Elevation: None

BIG THOMPSON RIVER ABOVE CANYON MOUTH AT CEDAR COVE, CO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bear Lake Site Page...



Bear Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lake Irene Site Page...



Lake Irene

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Phantom Valley Site Page...



Phantom Valley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Willow Park Site Page...



Willow Park
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-162310, 333-162009, 333-140105 and 333-142013 on Forms S-3 and Registration
Statement Nos. 333-64495, 333-33481, 333-149882 and 333-125863 on Forms S-8 of
Altair Nanotechnologies, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") of our reports
dated March 12, 2010, relating to our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2009.
 
 
 
 
 Sacramento,
California
 March 12,
2010
IB 

Union Calendar No. 109 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1991 

[Report No. 114–151, Part I] 

To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 

of Agriculture to carry out the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2015 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah (for himself and Mr. GRIJALVA) 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 

JUNE 12, 2015 

Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources 

JUNE 12, 2015 

The Committee on Agriculture discharged; committed to the Committee of the 

Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1991 RH

A BILL 

To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 

and the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, and for other purposes. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1991 RH

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 ‘‘Federal Lands Recre5 ation Enhancement Act Extension Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL 

7 LANDS RECREATION ENHANCEMENT ACT. 

8 Section 810 of the Federal Lands Recreation En9 hancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6809) is amended to read as 

10 follows: 

11 ‘‘SEC. 810. SUNSET PROVISION. 

12 ‘‘The authority of the Secretary to carry out this title 

13 shall terminate on September 30, 2017.’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 109 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1991 

[Report No. 114–151, Part I] 

A BILL 

To extend the authority of the Secretary of the InAct, and for other purposes. out the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement terior and the Secretary of Agriculture to carry 

JUNE 12, 2015 

Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources 

JUNE 12, 2015 

The Committee on Agriculture discharged; committed to 

Union and ordered to be printed the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 Northwest Pipe Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephanie J. Welty, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ STEPHANIE J. WELTY                        
|Stephanie J. Welty                            
|Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
|November 4, 2010
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 17

- 00725

- CV

John RICHMOND

, Appellant

v.

VRM (VENDOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT) , Duly Authorized Agent for the Secretary

of Veterans Affairs,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10 , Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- CV

- 03985

Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: Janua ry 17, 2018

MOTION GRANTED, DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

.

P. 42.1(a)(1). Because the motion does not disclose an agreement of the parties regarding the

assessment of costs, we order all costs assessed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d)

(absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant)

.

PER CURIAM
RIO GRANDE BLW TAOS JUNCTION BRIDGE NEAR TAOS, NMLatitude: 36.32Longitude: -105.754Elevation: 6067

RIO GRANDE BLW TAOS JUNCTION BRIDGE NEAR TAOS, NM

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ute Creek Site Page...



Ute Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grayback Site Page...



Grayback

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Tres Ritos Site Page...



Tres Ritos

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Powderhorn Site Page...



Taos Powderhorn

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Shuree Site Page...



Shuree

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Palo Site Page...



Palo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to San Antonio Sink Site Page...



San Antonio Sink

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rio Santa Barbara Site Page...



Rio Santa Barbara

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Pueblo Site Page...



Taos Pueblo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Culebra #2 Site Page...



Culebra #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cumbres Trestle Site Page...



Cumbres Trestle

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Gallegos Peak Site Page...



Gallegos Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lily Pond Site Page...



Lily Pond

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Creek Site Page...



Middle Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to North Costilla Site Page...



North Costilla

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red River Pass #2 Site Page...



Red River Pass #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Trinchera Site Page...



Trinchera

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper San Juan Site Page...



Upper San Juan

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Whiskey Ck Site Page...



Whiskey Ck

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Summit Site Page...



Wolf Creek Summit
May 17, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF M.C.H. AKA B.G.H. , A CHILD

NO. 14

- 12

- 00103

- CV

____________________

T his cause, an appeal from the order terminating the parental rights of Kena N. Hall and Unknown Father over the minor child M.C.H. aka B.G.H., signed January 18, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find
no error in the order

. The order of the court below is AFFIRMED

.

We order this decision certified below for observance.

We further order the mandate be issued immediately.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Moore, Also Known as Robert Sullivan, Appellant.

*502—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.), rendered June 8, 1984, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case and in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the brief reference to the defendant’s postarrest silence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 237). Moreover, the remarks objected to by the defendant in the prosecutor’s summation constituted a fair response to defense counsel’s summation and were therefore not improper *(see, People v Colon,*122 AD2d 151; *People v Saylor,*115 AD2d 671, *lv denied*67 NY2d 889; *People v Gilmore,*106 AD2d 399, 401).

Since the defendant did not demonstrate the necessity for the appointment of a fingerprint expert on his behalf under County Law § 722-c, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request to appoint such expert *(see, Johnson v Harris,*682 F2d 49, 50, *cert denied*459 US 1041; *People v Pride,*79 Misc 2d 581). Further, the trial court did not act improperly when it ordered the defendant to be fingerprinted *(see,*CPL 240.40 [2] [b] [iii]) and when it admitted the unsigned arrest fingerprint samples of the defendant, which were found to be identical to the defendant’s fingerprints taken at trial *(cf. People v Pabon,*120 AD2d 685).

Neither denial of youthful offender status by the sentencing court *(see, People v Selg,*110 AD2d 918; *People v Parris,*109 AD2d 853) nor the sentence imposed *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80) was inappropriate. The defendant’s remaining arguments are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2021140EN.01000901.xml

| 21.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/9

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10237 — BRIDGEPOINT/INFINIGATE)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 140/04)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Bridgepoint Group Limited (‘Bridgepoint’, United Kingdom); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Bridgepoint Group Limited (‘Bridgepoint’, United Kingdom); and

| — | Infinigate Holding AG (‘Infinigate’, Switzerland), controlled by H.I.G. Capital L.L.C. (‘HIG’). |
| --- | --- |

—

Infinigate Holding AG (‘Infinigate’, Switzerland), controlled by H.I.G. Capital L.L.C. (‘HIG’).

Bridgepoint acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Infinigate.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Bridgepoint: an international private equity group focused on investing in established European middle market businesses in a broad range of sectors, including consumer/retail, business services, industrials, financial services, healthcare, media and technology; |
| --- | --- |

—

for Bridgepoint: an international private equity group focused on investing in established European middle market businesses in a broad range of sectors, including consumer/retail, business services, industrials, financial services, healthcare, media and technology;

| — | for Infinigate: value-added wholesale distribution of IT security products (including firewalls, VPN gateways, intrusion detection and prevention systems, encryption, virus protection, e-mail and content security solutions, and cloud-enabled security solutions). |
| --- | --- |

—

for Infinigate: value-added wholesale distribution of IT security products (including firewalls, VPN gateways, intrusion detection and prevention systems, encryption, virus protection, e-mail and content security solutions, and cloud-enabled security solutions).

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10237 — BRIDGEPOINT/INFINIGATE

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---