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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5086 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 10, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the 

Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the 

feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail, 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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5086 RFS

1 SECTION 1. CHIEF STANDING BEAR NATIONAL HISTORIC 

2 TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY. 

3 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 5(c) of the National 

4 Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by 

5 adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(ll) CHIEF STANDING BEAR NATIONAL HIS7 TORIC TRAIL.— 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Chief Standing 

9 Bear Trail, extending approximately 550 miles 

10 from Niobrara, Nebraska, to Ponca City, Okla11 homa, which follows the route taken by Chief 

12 Standing Bear and the Ponca people during 

13 Federal Indian removal, and approximately 550 

14 miles from Ponca City, Oklahoma, through 

15 Omaha, Nebraska, to Niobrara, Nebraska, 

16 which follows the return route taken by Chief 

17 Standing Bear and the Ponca people, as gen18 erally depicted on the map entitled ‘Chief 

19 Standing Bear National Historic Trail Feasi20 bility Study’, numbered 903/125,630, and dated 

21 November 2014. 

22 ‘‘(B) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map 

23 described in subparagraph (A) shall be on file 

24 and available for public inspection in the appro25 priate offices of the Department of the Interior. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5086 RFS

1 ‘‘(C) COMPONENTS.—The feasibility study 

2 conducted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall 

3 include a determination on whether the Chief 

4 Standing Bear Trail meets the criteria in sub5 section (b) for designation as a national historic 

6 trail.’’. 

7 (b) TIMELINE.—The feasibility study authorized by 

8 the amendment in subsection (a) shall be completed not 

9 later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

10 Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 9, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2013 WY 110

 April Term, A.D. 2013

September 18, 2013

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL 

RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING 

STATE BAR,

Petitioner,

v.

NANA Y. BOACHIE-YIADOM, WSB 

#6-3502,

Respondent.

D-13-0006

ORDER OF PUBLIC CENSURE

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon a “Report and Recommendation for 

Public Censure,” filed herein August 14, 2013, by the Board of Professional 

Responsibility for the Wyoming State Bar. The Court, after a careful review of the Board 

of Professional Responsibility’s Report and Recommendation and the file, finds that the 

Report and Recommendation should be approved, confirmed and adopted by the Court,

and that Respondent Nana Y. Boachie-Yiadom should be publicly censured for his

conduct, which is described in the attached Report and Recommendation. It is, therefore,

[¶2] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility’s 

Report and Recommendation for Public Censure, which is attached hereto and 

incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is, approved, confirmed, and adopted 

by this Court; and it is further

[¶3] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that Nana Y. Boachie-Yiadom shall be publicly

censured for his conduct, in a manner consistent with the censure contained in the 

attached Report and Recommendation for Public Censure; and it is further 
[¶4] ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 26 of the Disciplinary Code for the 

Wyoming State Bar, Respondent shall reimburse the Wyoming State Bar the amount of 

$50.00, representing some of the costs incurred in handling this matter, as well as pay the 

administrative fee of $500.00. Respondent shall pay the total amount of $550.00 to the 

Clerk of the Board of Professional Responsibility on or before October 31, 2013; and it is 

further

[¶5] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order of Public Censure, 

along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation for Public Censure, as a matter 

coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and it is further

[¶6] ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming 

State Bar, this Order of Public Censure, along with the incorporated Report and 

Recommendation for Public Censure, shall be published in the Wyoming Reporter and 

the Pacific Reporter; and it is further

[¶7] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of the Order of Public 

Censure to be served upon Respondent Nana Y. Boachie-Yiadom.

[¶8] DATED this 18th day of September, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/

MARILYN S. KITE

Chief Justice
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HORTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PG&E CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 22-cv-06367-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 14

On March 21, 2023, the Court granted PG&E Corporation’s and Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company’s (collectively, “PG&E”) motion to dismiss Ricky-Dean Horton’s bankruptcy appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. Dkt. No 13. Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1) states that “a notice of appeal must 

be filed with the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days after entry of the judgment, order, or decree 

being appealed.” However, Mr. Horton did not file his appeal until almost a year after this 

deadline. Id. Mr. Horton has since filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 14.

In his motion and declaration, Mr. Horton identifies alleged deficiencies in the Court’s 

order granting the motion to dismiss. See Dkt. Nos. 14, 15. He explains, for example, that he was 

not simply challenging a specific order by the bankruptcy court. Rather, he contends that his due 

process rights were violated when the bankruptcy court concluded that his claims were barred by 

the statute of limitations without holding a hearing, resolving his evidentiary objections, or 

allowing him to confront witnesses in court. See Dkt. No. 14 at 2–4. Mr. Horton also maintains 

his substantive disagreement with the bankruptcy court’s conclusions about his claims. See id. at 

4–5.

Critically, none of Mr. Horton’s arguments address the timeliness of his appeal. The Court 

continues to find that it lacks jurisdiction, and no further briefing or hearing is necessary. The 

Case 4:22-cv-06367-HSG Document 16 Filed 04/19/23 Page 1 of 2 Entered on Docket 

April 20, 2023

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13678 Filed: 04/20/23 Entered: 04/20/23 10:46:13 Page 1

of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court therefore DENIES the motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2023

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:22-cv-06367-HSG Document 16 Filed 04/19/23 Page 2 of 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13678 Filed: 04/20/23 Entered: 04/20/23 10:46:13 Page 2

of 2
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In
connection with the Annual Report of Volcan Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
Sholom Feldman, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to
his knowledge:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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









January
      15, 2010


/s/
      Sholom FeldmanSholom
      Feldman
              Treasurer
      and Secretary
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 476 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 476

  To amend title 31, United States Code, to require the President to 
   submit with the budget an estimate of the deficit using generally 
 accepted accounting principles, and to amend the Congressional Budget 
 Act of 1974 to require the Congressional Budget Office to submit the 
 same with its report to the Committees on the Budget of the House of 
                    Representatives and the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2013

  Mr. Gingrey of Georgia (for himself and Mr. Conaway) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 31, United States Code, to require the President to 
   submit with the budget an estimate of the deficit using generally 
 accepted accounting principles, and to amend the Congressional Budget 
 Act of 1974 to require the Congressional Budget Office to submit the 
 same with its report to the Committees on the Budget of the House of 
                    Representatives and the Senate.

    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 ``Generally Accepted Accounting 
Principles Act'' or the ``GAAP Act''.

SEC. 2. BUDGET DEFICIT CALCULATION USING GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING 
              PRINCIPLES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) by redesignating the second paragraph (37) (relating to 
        a list of plans and reports for elimination or consolidation) 
        as paragraph (39); and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(40) an estimate of the deficit or surplus for the fiscal 
        year for which the budget is submitted, prepared using 
        generally accepted accounting principles.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The requirement added by subsection (a) shall 
take effect beginning with the budget submission made by the President 
in 2015.

SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE REPORT TO THE COMMITTEES ON THE 
              BUDGET OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE.

    (a) In General.--Section 202(e)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 602(e)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting ``prepared 
using both cash basis accounting and generally accepted accounting 
principles'' after ``(including related surpluses and deficits''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The requirement added by subsection (a) shall 
take effect beginning with the report that the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office submits in 2015.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 128016 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128016 COA: 257002 Wayne CC: 95-010950 CHRISTOPHER D. POREMBA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the January 3, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARLA MARIA LUNA,

Petitioner,

v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 20

- 71461 Agency No. A205

- 055

- 370

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 17, 2021 * *
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Karla Maria Luna , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judg e’s decision finding
her removable and denying her application s for cancellation of removal and

* 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). 

# F ILED

FEB 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 71461

asylum, withholding of removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia

- Milian v. H

older , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We deny the petition for review

. Luna does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIA ’s denial
of her motion to remand. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding petitioner waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and argued in the opening brief).
Luna also does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s
determination that Luna’s controlled substance conviction rendered her removable
and statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal

. See Id

. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Luna failed to
establish that the harm she expe rienced or fears in Mexico was or would be on account of a protected ground

. See INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (19 92) ( requiring that an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“ An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a prot ected ground

. ”)

. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denia l of CAT relief because
Luna failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the3 20

- 71461

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mex ico. See Aden v.
Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)

. As stated in the court’s October 19, 2020 order, the stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2863-2 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:36:16 Page 1

of 1
Exhibit 5 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 1

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 2 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 2

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 3 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 3

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 4 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 4

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 5 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 5

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 6 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 6

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 7 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 7

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 8 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 8

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 9 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 9

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 10 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 10

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 11 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 11

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 12 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 12

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 13 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 13

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 14 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 14

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 15 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 15

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 16 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 16

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 17 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 17

of 18
Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1006-3 Filed 02/06/19 Page 18 of 18

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2864-6 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 18:48:47 Page 18

of 18
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 251 Filed: 02/01/19 Entered: 02/01/19 14:04:30 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of MidSouth Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 (the “Report”), I, C.R.
Cloutier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify 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/ C. R.
Cloutier


________________________


C.R.
Cloutier


Chief
Executive Officer


May 8,
2008