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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 524 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to disapprove a permit after it has been issued by the Secretary 

of the Army under section 404 of such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2013 

Mr. MCKINLEY (for himself, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. GIBBS, Mrs. CAPITO, Mrs. 

BLACKBURN, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia, Mr. DUNCAN

of South Carolina, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. BUCSHON, and Mr. 

KLINE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify 

that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency does not have the authority to disapprove a permit after it has been issued by the Secretary of the 

Army under section 404 of such Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL. 

4 Section 404(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Con5 trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘The 

6 Administrator is authorized’’ and inserting ‘‘Until such 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 524 IH

1 time as the Secretary has issued a permit under this sec2 tion, the Administrator is authorized’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0026-18

ANTONIO R. FLORES, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

CONCURRENCE TO REFUSAL TO GRANT

STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

BEXAR COUNTY

NEWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion.

I join the Court’s refusal of the State’s petition for discretionary

review. I write separately to address the irony of discussing the

prohibition regarding advisory opinions in what amounts to two advisory

opinions. Outside of an unpublished opinion, I cannot think of opinions

with less precedential or persuasive value than side opinions to the

refusal of a petition for discretionary review. As we have said, the
Flores Concurring – 2

summary refusal of a petition for discretionary review is of no

precedential value. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1983) (per curiam). This is true even when we refuse a petition for

discretionary review with a brief, per curiam opinion disavowing the

reasoning employed by the court of appeals. Id. Any side opinions

attached to such an order must necessarily be at least one step below

that on the precedential/persuasive scale.

With this in mind, it bears repeating that this Court’s order refusing

discretionary review is not a holding that the prohibition against issuing

advisory opinions requires a refusal of discretionary review in this case.

Neither is this Court’s order refusing discretionary review saying anything

regarding what constitutes a “decision” of the court of appeals. It is only

an indication that this Court does not believe this case merits the exercise

of our discretionary review authority. See Burch v. State, 712 S.W.2d

163, 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (per curiam) (“As is true in every case,

refusal of discretionary review by this Court does not constitute

endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of

Appeals.”).

The parties in this case are not concerned with the scope of our

authority to grant or refuse a petition for discretionary review. They just
Flores Concurring – 3

want us to make the decision. We have. This meta-conversation about

our authority or the nature of opinions is unnecessary and more likely to

confuse than clarify.

With these thoughts I join the Court’s order.

Filed: June 27, 2018

Publish
*Exhibit 32(b)***Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**     I, Michael A. Weisbarth, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of LESCO, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,2006 which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Michael A. Weisbarth   Michael A. Weisbarth  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer  Date: May 10, 2006
32
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3473    Filed: 08/08/19    Entered: 08/08/19 15:03:34    Page 1 of1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4835 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4835

  To amend title 11 of the United States Code to stop abusive student 
             loan collection practices in bankruptcy cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2014

   Mr. Conyers (for himself, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Johnson of Georgia) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 11 of the United States Code to stop abusive student 
             loan collection practices in bankruptcy cases.

    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 ``Stopping Abusive Student Loan 
Collection Practices in Bankruptcy Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 523(d) of title 11 of the United States Code is amended by 
striking ``of this section'' and inserting ``or the debtor requests a 
determination of the dischargeability of a debt based on undue hardship 
under subsection (a)(8)''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendment made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendment.--The amendment made by this Act shall 
apply only with respect to cases commenced under title 11 of the United 
States Code on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5050 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5050

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 3, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
       To repeal the Act of May 31, 1918, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``May 31, 1918 Act Repeal Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) 1918 act.--The term ``1918 Act'' means the Act of May 
        31, 1918 (40 Stat. 592, chapter 88).
            (2) Fort hall townsite.--The term ``Fort Hall Townsite'' 
        means the land that was taken out of trust by being set aside 
        or set apart under the 1918 Act on the Fort Hall Reservation, 
        consisting of approximately 120 acres in the East Half of the 
        Northeast Quarter in Section 35 and the West Half of the West 
        Half of the Northwest Quarter in Section 36, Township 4 South, 
        Range 34 East, Boise Meridian, Idaho, based upon a survey 
        completed on May 19, 1921, and depicted on the document 
        entitled ``Plat of the Townsite of Fort Hall'' on file with 
        Bingham County, Idaho and the Tribes.
            (3) Tribes.--The term ``Tribes'' means the Shoshone-Bannock 
        Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation.

SEC. 3. REPEAL.

    The 1918 Act is repealed.

SEC. 4. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.

    (a) In General.--The Tribes shall have the exclusive right of first 
refusal to purchase at fair market value any land--
            (1) within the Fort Hall Townsite; and
            (2) offered for sale.
    (b) Acquired Land Held in Trust.--The United States shall hold in 
trust for the benefit of the Tribes or a member of the Tribes, as 
applicable--
            (1) any land owned or acquired by the Tribes or a member of 
        the Tribes within the Fort Hall Townsite before the date of 
        enactment of this Act; and
            (2) any land owned or acquired by the Tribes or a member of 
        the Tribes within the Fort Hall Townsite on or after the date 
        of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. EFFECT.

    Nothing in this Act affects any valid right to any land set aside 
or set apart under the 1918 Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 2, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00460-CV

Kenneth Bryson and Sue Bryson, Appellants

v.

Thomas P. Allison, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF MILAM COUNTY

NO. CV09303, HONORABLE DAVID BARKMEYER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On September 28, 2015, this Court sent notice to appellants that the clerk’s record

and reporter’s record were due in this Court on September 14, 2015, and that notice was received

from the district clerk that no payment had been received or arrangements made for payment for the

clerk’s record. This Court requested that appellants make arrangements for the record and submit

a status report. Appellants were notified that their appeal would be dismissed for want of

prosecution if they did respond to this Court by October 8, 2015. To date, appellants have not

responded to the Court’s notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).
__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: October 15, 2015

2
#### In the Matter of the Application of Sextus E. Taylor to Compel Susan J. Taylor to Turn over Certain Moneys.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ. Order to be settled before Mr. Justice Carr.
1

The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3454

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Kelly Flannery, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 2, 2004

Filed: July 27, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kelly Flannery appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to aiding and abetting others in willfully making a threat and maliciously

conveying false information, over the telephone, about alleged attempts to blow up

a courthouse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(e) and 2. At sentencing, the district

court determined that Flannery was a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and

sentenced him to 120 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. We

affirm. 
-2-

Flannery argues for the first time that he was improperly classified as a career

offender because the instant offense did not qualify as a “crime of violence.” We find

that the court did not plainly err in classifying the instant offense--aiding and abetting

others in threatening to blow up the courthouse--as a crime of violence. See U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.2(a) (defining crime of violence); United States v. Santos, 131 F.3d 16, 21 (1st

Cir. 1997); cf. United States v. Left Hand Bull, 901 F.2d 647, 649 (8th Cir. 1990)

(where defendant mailed threatening letter, he committed crime of violence under

career-offender provisions, even if he lacked ability to act contemporaneously upon

his threat). Flannery also argues he should have received an acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction. We reject this contention, because in light of the evidence

presented at sentencing, the court did not clearly err in finding that Flannery

minimized his role in the offense to the probation officer who interviewed him. See

United States v. Alaniz, 148 F.3d 929, 937 (8th Cir. 1998) (denying acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction because entry of guilty plea alone did not entitle defendant

to reduction, and he continued to deny his involvement in offense after there was

substantial evidence of his participation).

We do not reach Flannery’s remaining arguments regarding his criminal history

points and an aggravating-role enhancement, because these issues are moot in light

of Flannery’s career-offender status. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). Accordingly, we

affirm.

______________________________
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2583 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 14:31:15 Page 1 of

11
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2583 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 14:31:15 Page 2 of

11
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2583 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 14:31:15 Page 3 of

11
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2583 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 14:31:15 Page 4 of

11
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2583 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 14:31:15 Page 5 of

11
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2583 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 14:31:15 Page 6 of

11
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2583 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 14:31:15 Page 7 of

11
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2583 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 14:31:15 Page 8 of

11
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2583 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 14:31:15 Page 9 of

11
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2583 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 14:31:15 Page 10

of 11
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2583 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 14:31:15 Page 11

of 11
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5237 

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to allow aliens having status 

as an E–2 nonimmigrant by reason of a change of nonimmigrant classification made in the United States to re-enter the United States after 

a trip abroad without obtaining a new visa. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2014 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to allow aliens 

having status as an E–2 nonimmigrant by reason of 

a change of nonimmigrant classification made in the 

United States to re-enter the United States after a trip 

abroad without obtaining a new visa. 

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— 

5 (1) the ‘‘Investors Need Clear Laws with Uni6 form Direction for E–2 Status Holders Act’’; or 

7 (2) the ‘‘INCLUDE Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5237 IH

1 SEC. 2. UNLIMITED RE-ENTRIES FOR CERTAIN TREATY IN2 VESTORS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Homeland Secu4 rity shall take such steps as may be necessary to ensure 

5 that— 

6 (1) an alien described in subsection (b) may re7 enter the United States after a trip abroad without 

8 having to request or obtain a new visa; and 

9 (2) there is no limit on the number of such re10 entries during the period in which the alien lawfully 

11 holds status under section 101(a)(15)(E)(ii) of the 

12 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

13 1101(a)(15)(E)(ii)). 

14 (b) ALIENS DESCRIBED.—An alien described in this 

15 subsection is an alien having lawful status under section 

16 101(a)(15)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

17 (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(ii)) by reason of a change of 

18 nonimmigrant classification made in the United States 

19 under section 248 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1258). 

20 (c) TRAVEL DOCUMENTS.—The Secretary of Home21 land Security shall commence issuance of travel docu22 ments determined appropriate by the Secretary to carry 

23 out this section, such as re-entry permits, advance parole 

24 travel documents, or any other travel documents deemed 

25 appropriate by the Secretary for this purpose. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-30039) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Plan, Employee Stock
Purchase Plan and Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan of Aurora
Biosciences Corporation of our report dated February 7, 1998, with respect to
the financial statements of Aurora Biosciences Corporation included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Diego, California
March 25, 1998
I INANCY MITCHELL (pro hac vice pending)

nmitchell@omm.com 

2 PETER FRIEDMAN (admitted pro hac vice)

pfriedman@omm.com 

3 MATTHEW L. HINK.ER (admitted pro hac vice) 

mhinker@omm.com 

4 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

5 7 Times Square 

INew York, NY I 0036 

6 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 

Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 

8 

JACOB T. BEISWENGER (S.B. #321012) 

�beiswenger@omm.com 

9 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

400 South Hope Street 

1 O Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 

Telephone: (213) 430-6000 

11 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 

12 !Attorneys for Governor Gavin Newsom

13 and the Department of Finance for

the State of California 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

-andPACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

23 □ Affects PG&E Corporation

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

□ Affects Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Iii Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF 

ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3414 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 13:23:13 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3414 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 13:23:13 Page 2 of

3
Appellate ©tbtston of tbe Supreme Court

of tbe fttate of iBeto §?ork

Jftrst Jubtrial department

3f, Susanna &ojas, Clerk of tbe appellate dttosion of

tfie Supreme Court of tbe ^>tate of JBteto gork, Jftrsit Jubmal

department, certtfp tfjat

NANCY A MITCHELL

toas bulp Ucenseb anb abmitteb to practice as an gttornep anb

Counsellor at Hato in all tbe courts of tbe ^>tate of J?eto gork on

June 4, 2007, Ijas bulp taken anb subscrtbeb tfie oatb of office

prescribeb bp lato, b^S been enrolleb in tbe &oll of glttorneps anb

Counsellors at Hato on file in mp office, bus bulp registereb tottb

tbe abmimstrattbe office of tbe courts, anb accorbtng to tbe recorbs

of this court is in goob stanbmg as an attornep anb counsellor at

lato.

8419

3fn Witness ^hereof, lb babe hereunto set mp

banb anb affixeb tbe seal of this court on

August 7, ?019

, i1 W ' ; 1/’■" ( ,

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3414 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 13:23:13 Page 3 of

3
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 30338 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Jonathan Francis Kimbrell,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:19

- CR

- 70

- 1

Before **Higginbotham, Graves,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * A jury convicted Jonathan Francis Kimbrell of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). In his sole issue on appeal, Kimbrell asserts that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the defense of entrapment even though he established

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 12, 2022

Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 21-30338 Document: 00516429915 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2022No. 21

- 30338

2 at trial the requisite Government inducement and his lack of predisposition to commit the offense

. See United States v. Theagene , 565 F.3d 911, 918 (5th Cir. 2009). Kimbrell did not request a n entrapment jury instruction ; thus,

we review his argument for plain error. See United States v. Hickman , 331 F.3d 439, 443 (5th Cir. 2003)

. The evidence presented at trial demonstrates that although the Government introduced the poss ibility of underage sexual relations when two agents , posing online as a married couple , offered Kimbrell the opportunity to have sex with Layla, the wife’s 11

- year

- old daughter, also played by one of the agents, Kimbrell was undeterred by her age. Kimbre ll sent dozens of email messages eagerly and enthusiastically express ing his interest in having sex with Layla after learning of her age

. T he agents disengaged from the conversation at times, equivocated on scheduling a meeting, and offered Kimbrell numer ous opportunities to abandon his plans , but Kimbrell persisted with plans to meet the couple and their daughter for

sex. Based on th e foregoing, Kimbrell fails to show that he was not predisposed to commit the enticement offense

. See Theagene , 565 F.3d at
91 9 ; see also United States v. Reyes , 239 F.3d 722, 739 (5th Cir. 2001) . Because Kimbrell failed to set forth a prima facie case of entrapment, the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, by not sua sponte instructing the jury on the the ory of entrapment. See Hickman , 331 F.3d at 443 ; see also Theagene , 565 F.3d at 918

. **AFFIRMED.** Case: 21-30338 Document: 00516429915 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2022
Exhibit 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of 3SBio Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jing Lou, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 27, 2008



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/    DR. JING
LOU    
|Name:  |  | Dr. Jing Lou           
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
#### In the Matter of Joseph W. Ryan, Jr., Respondent, v Joseph R. Caputo, as Comptroller of Suffolk County, Respondent, and Anton J. Borovina, as Special Counsel to the Suffolk County Legislature, et al., Appellants.

Submitted September 11,1995;

decided December 28, 1995

Motion for leave to appeal denied. Cross motion for imposition of sanctions denied.