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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4368 

To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from implementing proposed 

policy changes that would permit passengers to carry small, non-locking 

knives on aircraft. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2014 

Mr. GRIMM (for himself, Ms. GABBARD, Mr. LIPINSKI, and Mr. JOYCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from implementing proposed policy changes that would permit passengers to carry small, non-locking knives on aircraft. 

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 ‘‘Keep Knives Out of 

5 Our Skies Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4368 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY 

2 CHANGE TO PERMIT SMALL, NON-LOCKING 

3 KNIVES ON AIRCRAFT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, on and after the date of the enactment of 

6 this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security may not im7 plement any change to the prohibited items list of the 

8 Transportation Security Administration that would permit 

9 passengers to carry small, non-locking knives through pas10 senger screening checkpoints at airports, into sterile areas 

11 at airports, or onboard passenger aircraft. 

12 (b) PROHIBITED ITEMS LIST DEFINED.—In this sec13 tion, the term ‘‘prohibited items list’’ means the list of 

14 items passengers are prohibited from carrying as acces15 sible property or on their persons through passenger 

16 screening checkpoints at airports, into sterile areas at air17 ports, and onboard passenger aircraft pursuant to section 

18 1540.111 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (as in 

19 effect on January 1, 2013). 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE v. Freddie David PAIGE

66P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

Mr. Freddie David Paige, 0809165, for Paige, Freddie David

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of March 2018 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."
**Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Czech Republic v Commission**

**(Case T-248/07)**

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted due to the accession of new Member States — 2003 Act of Accession — Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination
— Objective pursued by a provision of primary legislation — Decision 2007/361/EC

1.                     *Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets
— Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Assessment of excess stocks — Attenuation of the obligation
to eliminate excess stocks (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2); Commission Regulation No 1972/2003) (see para.
30)*

2.                     *Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets
— Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Elimination by new Member States of their excess stocks
— Concept — Commission’s margin of discretion (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV, Section 4(2)) (see paras 40-48)*

3.                     *Accession of new Member States to the Communities — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets
— Transitional measures concerning trade in agricultural products — Duty of new Member States to eliminate their excess stocks
— Commission decision imposing a payment obligation not designed to cover the costs of eliminating surpluses from the internal
market — Incompatibility with Annex IV, Section 4(2) of the Act of Accession — Annulment (2003 Act of Accession, Annex IV,
Section 4(2)) (see paras 49-52, 75-77, 79-80)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Czech Republic and to bear its own costs; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Orders the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. James William SURANE and wife, Kimberly R. Thaxton, Defendants.

No. COA17-842

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

AFFIRMED.
ex102.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 




  





8











  






 


 




  





9











  






 


 


10
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1605-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1605-DR), dated August 29, 2005, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

September 26, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective September 26, 2005. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

R. David Paulison, 

Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 05-19813 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Guss Bobby CARTER, Jr.

No. 309P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Carter, Guss Bobby (Jr.)

Tiffany Y. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th of September 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
#### Victor JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D03-776.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 16, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 26, 2003.

Victor Johnson, Florida City, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna L. Eng, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order that denied his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant challenged his sentence as illegal because there was no factual basis to support a finding that the starter pistol qualified as a firearm in support of the three year minimum mandatory sentence. We reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion challenging the factual basis for the imposition of his minimum mandatory sentence. *See State v. Mancino,*705 So.2d 1379, 1381 (Fla.1998); *Evans v. State,*758 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

FARMER, C.J., STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the McC. Children. Janine McC., Appellant; Commissioner of Social Services, Respondent.

[718 NYS2d 848]

Appeal from orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about January 9, 1998, which extended the subject children’s foster care placement for 12 months, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs.

The matter is academic since the appealed order has expired *338and subsequent orders extending placement have been entered *(Matter of Rosalie C.,*254 AD2d 40). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 2397

USIEL ELIFAS DE LEON ROBLERO, a/k/a Amilcar Gonzalez Perez , Petitioner ,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : May 17, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018

Before WYNN , FLOYD , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Chad A. Readler , Acting Assistant Attorney General , Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Nancy K. Canter, Office of Immigration Litigation , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Usiel Elifas De Leon Roblero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) den ying his motion to reconsider its decision dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the petition for review. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i ) (2012), entitled “Denials of discretionary relief,” “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b,” which is the section governing cancellation of removal. In this case, the IJ found, and the Board agreed, that Roblero failed to meet his burden of establishing that his United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he is returned to Mexico. We conclude that this determination is clearly discret ionary in nature, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review challenges to this finding absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of

law. See Sattani v. Holder, 749 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 2014) (finding no jurisdiction to

review determination that aliens failed to demonstrate requisite hardship to their U.S. citizen son); Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] bars our jurisdiction to review a decision

of t he [Board] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of removal.”); Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001) (concluding, under transitional rules, that issue of hardship is committed to agency discretion and is not subject to appellate review).3 We have reviewed Roblero’s cla ims of error and conclude that he fails to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a colorable

constit utional claim or question of law, our review of the issue is not authorized by § 1252(a)(2)(D).” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

conte ntions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 20

- 00243

- CV

THE LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS HUNSBERGER

, Appellant

v.

PHYSICIAN LIFE CARE PLANNING, LLC

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CV04283

Honorable David J. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.

SIGNED July 21, 2021.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert O'Neal DICK

No. 148P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Craig M. Cooley, Attorney at Law, Cary, for Dick, Robert O'Neal.

Scott T. Slusser, Assistant Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 22nd of May 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of May 2018 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

June 28, 2005

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DONALD LUKE SEIBER, ALIAS

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County

No. 73049 Ray L. Jenkins, Judge

No. E2004-01794-CCA-R3-CD - Filed October 25, 2005

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., concurring.

Respectfully, I find I cannot fully concur in the opinion because, based upon the

absence of a contemporaneous objection, it treats as waived the issue of the trial court’s “reading the

aggravated kidnapping as a lesser-included offense out of order during the charge to the jury.” The

instructional problem alleged is one of instructional error, not instructional omission. In the case

of the former, no contemporaneous objection isrequired, unlike when an instruction is omitted. See,

e.g., State v. Johnny Wade Meeks, No. 03C01-9811-CR-00411, slip op. at 8-9 (Tenn. Crim. App.,

Knoxville, Dec. 3, 1999).

Even though Isee no requirement that appellate review of this issue is occluded based

upon a lack of contemporaneous objection, I nevertheless would not reverse the conviction of

aggravated kidnapping. In my view the arrangement of the jury instructions, if error, was harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt.

___________________________________ 

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE
STATE of North Carolina v. Vickie Egan KOHLER

No. COA17-660

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 20, 2018

NO ERROR.
Exhibit
32.1


Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








I,
William C. Bayless, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of American Campus Communities,
Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(i)The Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and





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








Dated: 
       May 1, 2009
                  /s/
      William C. Bayless, Jr.William
      C. Bayless, Jr.President
      and Chief Executive Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Jesse Junior PRATT

No. COA17-1294

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 19, 2018

NO ERROR.
NO. SCMF-12-0000538

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

In the Matter of the

FEBRUARY 2016 EXAMINATION FOR ADMISSION 

TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

NOTICE OF PASSING THE HAWAI#I BAR EXAMINATION

The applicants listed below are hereby notified that each has passed the

February 2016 Hawai#i examination for admission to the Bar of the State of Hawai#i, as

required by Rule 1.3(g)(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i

(RSCH): 

Marissa Lynne Abraham

Remy Kealohiokailiwai Akina

Anmar Alnagem

Lisa Ann Altman

Stephen Deutsch Atwell

Sarah Elizabeth Beamer

Angela Marie Berry

Kirsten Marie Blume

Jeffrey Bruce Bott

Stephen Robert Brzezinski

Charissa Baradi Cabrera

Sharon Paris Cacurak

Sarah Kay Zaleski Campbell

Paula Kay Canny

Ian Andrew Carter

Nicholas Adam Corrado

Jeffrey William Daly

Michelle Chi Dickinson

Christopher George Mulligan Fargo-Masuda

Sarah Baker Faust

Christopher Ryan Fromm

Jennifer Leigh Gitter

Melissa Dale Goldman

Jay Mark Goldstein

Fern Ann Nicole Grether

Dylan Drummond Grimes

Ginger Lee Grimes

Charles Carter Hall

Dana Michi Harada

Midori Kristina Hirai

Angelic Malia Ho

William Dee Houser

Judy Mutsuye Iriye

Kristin Nicole Ivanco

-1-

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCMF-12-0000538

03-MAY-2016

05:04 PM
Shauna Lee Keanuenueokeko#olau Kahiapo

Ryan Mark Kaufman

Daniel Ken Kikawa

Duane Michael Kokesch

Lee Ying Kwok

Roy Hyuk Kwon

Tuan Nha Nguyen La

Daniel Richard Lam

David Bartley Leas

Joanne Jaewon Lee

Stacy Yu-Hao Kanani Ma

Christina Claire Benton MacLeod

Juliette Bowen McCullough

Matthew Thomas McDonnell

Nicholas Matthew McLean

Brandon Yoshiyuki Moriki

David Alan Morris

Brian Thomas Morrow

Serena Lucile O'Grady

Gregory William O'Neill

Elizabeth Eve O’Sullivan

John Robert Odle

Melanie Katsue Oyama

Jedediah Oscar Peterson

Philip Lansdale Pillsbury, Jr.

Sandra Ann Kauionalani Pratt-Aquino

Kenji Marcel Price

Sabrina Piilani Robello

Ian Rowe Ross

Kahlan Charles Salina

Sara Lynn Santilli

Pamela Jean Scholefield

Pamela Lynn Schultz

Noel Kaleikalaunuoka#oia#i#o Shaw

Eric Thomas Sievers

Steven Slavitt

Kristen Briane Kananiu#ilani Souza

Bradley Jordan Sova

Wing Shan Suen

Barry Sullivan

Ellen Andrea Swick

Gina May Szeto

Khaled Taqi-Eddin

Louise Lafitaga Togiai

Jonathan Kepo#o Kapiliela Derby Tungpalan

Daniel Caille Vermillion

James Jonathan Wade

Mike Senning Wallerstein

Dean Hsu-Tsun Wang

Joyce Chungwhei Wang

Christine Sachiko Khim West

Leslie Anne Wilkes

Aaron Kahauoliokuupuuwai Wills

Brent Kahanaumaikai Wilson

Siiri Aileen Wilson

Danielle Marie Wrick

Nicole Anne Zens

Nancy Hong Jiao Zhao

Each applicant is reminded that, until he or she has met all other

requirements as set forth in RSCH Rule 1.3, and has been admitted to practice law by

the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i, that applicant may not engage in the

practice of law in this jurisdiction. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 3, 2016. 

BOARD OF EXAMINERS

By: /s/ Rochelle R.T. Kaui

Its Secretary

-2-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cedric Tam, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 858]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated December 28, 1998 *{People v Tam,*256 AD2d 600), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 19, 1995.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Krausman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4508 

To amend the East Bench Irrigation District Water Contract Extension 

Act to permit the Secretary of the Interior to extend the contract for 

certain water services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2014 

Mr. DAINES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the East Bench Irrigation District Water Contract 

Extension Act to permit the Secretary of the Interior 

to extend the contract for certain water services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EAST BENCH IRRIGATION DISTRICT CONTRACT 

4 EXTENSION. 

5 Section 2(1) of the East Bench Irrigation District 

6 Water Contract Extension Act (Public Law 112–139; 126 

7 Stat. 390) is amended by striking ‘‘4 years’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘10 years’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS