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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 524 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 524

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an exemption for 
                    certain shoreline borrow sites.

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

SECTION 1. FEDERAL COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.

    Section 6(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 
3505(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) Use of a sand source within a System unit by Federal 
        coastal storm risk management projects or their predecessor 
        projects that have used a system unit for sand to nourish 
        adjacent beaches outside the System pursuant to section 5 of 
        the Act of August 18, 1941 (commonly known as the `Flood 
        Control Act of 1941') (55 Stat. 650, chapter 377; 33 U.S.C. 
        701n) at least once between December 31, 2008 and December 31, 
        2023 in response to an emergency situation prior to December 
        31, 2023.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 11, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 524

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an exemption for 
                    certain shoreline borrow sites.
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5941

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3218

_____________________________

MIRANDA JEAN VARNUM,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County.

James M. Colaw, Judge.

March 27, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2023), review granted, SC2023-1355, 2024 WL 370043 (Fla. Jan. 

31, 2024). 

LEWIS, ROWE, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-20-00081-CR

NO. 09-20-00082-CR

__________________

JERMAINE JOSEPH DAVIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 18-30509, 18-30510

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 21, 2020, the trial court sentenced appellant Jermaine Joseph 

Davis on convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a 

child. Davis filed a notice of appeal in both cases on March 4, 2020. The trial court 

entered certifications of the defendant’s right to appeal, in which the court certified 

that these are plea-bargain cases and the defendant has waived the right of appeal. 
2

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The district clerk has provided the trial court’s 

certifications to the Court of Appeals. 

On March 5, 2020, we notified the parties that we would dismiss the appeals 

unless the appellant established grounds for continuing the appeals. Davis filed a 

response in each case, but he failed to establish that the trial court’s certifications 

should be amended. Because the records do not contain certifications that show the 

defendant has the right of appeal, we must dismiss the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals.

APPEALS DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 7, 2020

Opinion Delivered April 8, 2020

Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20056

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRENDA ROSAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-485-3

Before KING, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Brenda Rosas has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Rosas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 11, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20056 Document: 00514636322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2018
No. 18-20056

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-20056 Document: 00514636322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2018
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Cheeseboro, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered September 16, 1988, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of sodomy in the first degree, assault in the first degree and burglary in the first degree and sentenced him to *8Ys to 25*years on the sodomy count to run consecutively to a sentence of 5 to 15 years on the assault count, both of these to run concurrently with a term of *8Vs*to 25 years on the burglary account, unanimously affirmed.

The admission of testimony concerning an assault committed earlier in the day by defendant against the victim of the assault charged in the indictment does not warrant reversal. The general rule is that evidence of prior uncharged crimes may not be offered to show defendant’s bad character or propensity towards crime, but may be admitted if the acts help establish some element of the crime under consideration, *287or are relevant because of some recognized exception to the general rule. *(People v Lewis,*69 NY2d 321, 325.) In the present case, while the challenged testimony does not fit squarely into any exception to the general rule, it did provide some necessary background, and helped to establish the element of intent with respect to the assault. Furthermore, given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, it cannot be said that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the testimony had not been allowed. *(People v Johnson,*57 NY2d 969, 970.) The statements made by the prosecutor on summation were not so untoward as to warrant reversal. *(Cf., People v Dowdell,*88 AD2d 239.) The sentence imposed constituted a proper exercise of discretion given the nature of the crimes. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Asch, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6645

JessEm Tool Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests. 

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3



                         CMC SECURITIES CORPORATION II
                                   LISTING OF
                    OFFICER'S CERTIFICATES OF THE SERVICERS



<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                                           DATE OF
                        SERVICER                                                         CERTIFICATE
---------------------------------------------------------------                       -----------------
<S>                                                                                   <C>
ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc.                                                             March 1, 2000
Atlantic Mortgage and Investment Corporation                                          February 18, 2000
Bank of America Mortgage, LLC                                                            March 12, 2001
BB&T Financial Corporation (BB&T Mortgage)                                               March 10, 2001
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation                                                     March 30, 2001
Colonial Savings, F.A.                                                                 January 21, 2001
CUNA Mutual Mortgage Corporation                                                         March 21, 2001
Fifth Third Mortgage Co.                                                                  July 10, 1998
First Federal Savings Bank of America                                                               N/A
First Nationwide Mortgage Corporation                                                  January 16, 2001
Firstar Bank, N.A.                                                                       March 16, 2000
GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc.                                                       March 23, 2001
GMAC Mortgage Corporation                                                                March 31, 2001
M&T Mortgage Corporation                                                              February 26, 1999
Matrix Financial Services Corporation                                                    March 20, 2000
Mitchell Mortgage Corporation                                                         February 11, 2000
Navy Federal Credit Union                                                              January 28, 2000
Old Kent Mortgage Services, Inc.                                                         March 31, 2001
Regions Mortgage                                                                                    N/A
Southwest Bancorp, Inc. (Stillwater National Bank & Trust)                                 April 9,2001
Standard Mortgage Corporation                                                                       N/A
Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.                                                                   March 28,2001
Universal American Mortgage Company                                                      March 10, 2000
Waypoint Bank                                                                        September 25, 2000
</Table>
Short-Term Incentive Plan of John H. Heyman



 Exhibit 10.1 

Short-Term Incentive Plan of John H. Heyman 

2010 STI Goals 
  

			
	Name: John Heyman	  	Job Title: CEO
		
	Effective Dates of Plan: 1/1/10 – 12/31/10	  	Business Unit: Entire company
		
	STI Potential: 100% of Base Salary	  	Manager: Board of Directors

 Goals: 

 

											
	 Goal Description
	  	 Weight
	  	 Payout
Timing
	    	 Budget

(show qtrly if applicable)
	    	 Target

(show qtrly if applicable)
	  	Comments
	 Company Operating Income – 67%

paid at Budget &
 33% paid linearly
between
 Budget & Target
	  	100%	  	Annual	    	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 = N/A

Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A

Annual = [xxxxxx]*
	    	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 = N/A

Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A

Annual = [xxxxxx]*
	  	

  

* Filed under an application for confidential treatment.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4781

David C. Poole Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARIFFIN DARMAWAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74702

Agency No. A096-496-734

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Ariffin Darmawan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

SEP 28 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74702

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary

v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that the isolated mall

incident and general harassment and discrimination Darmawan experienced, even

considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at

1059-60. Further, even as a member of a disfavored group, Darmawan failed to

demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha v.

Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at

1066 (“An applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably

larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail”). Accordingly,

Darmawan’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because

Darmawan failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if

returned to Indonesia. See id. at 1067-68.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AR I F F I N D AR MAWAN, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 74702 A ge nc yN o. A 096- 496- 734 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A r i f f i n D arm aw an, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndone s i a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f orw i thhol di ng of r e m ova l and r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve 

# FI LED SEP 28 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 74702 2 j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence, W a kka ry v. H older , 558 F . 3d 1049, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , a nd w e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. S ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e I J ’s d e te rm in atio n th a t th e is o la te dm a ll i nci dentand g ener alhara ss m entand d i sc ri m i nat i on D arm aw an experi ence d, even c o n s id e r e dc u m u la tiv e ly , d idn o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n . Se e id . at 1 0 5 9 - 6 0 . F u rth e r , e v e n a s am e m b e ro f ad is f a v o r e dg r o up , D arm aw an f a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te th e r e q u is ite in d iv idu a liz e dr is ko f p e r s e c u tio n . See H

oxha v. A s h c r o ft , 3 1 9 F .3 d1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 4 - 8 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; see a l so W a kka ry , 55 8 F . 3d at 1 0 6 6 ( “A n ap p lic an t f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l w ill n e e dto a d du c e ac o n s id e r ab ly l arg er q u an tu m o f i n d i v i du al i zed -ri skev i d en ce t o p rev ai l ”). A cco rd i n g l y, D arm aw an ’ s w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al cl ai m fai l s. S ub st an t i al ev i d en ce sup p o rt s th e IJ’ s d en i al o f C A T rel i ef b ecau se D a rm a w a n f

a ile dto e s tab lis h it is m o r e lik e lyth an n o t h e w ill b e to rtu r e dif r e tu rn e dto I n d o n e s ia . Se e id . a t1067- 68. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
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 JayHawk Energy, Inc. a Colorado corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q-A for the period ending December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kelly J. Stopher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to JayHawk Energy, Inc., and will be retained by JayHawk Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  /s/ Kelly J. StopherKelly J. Stopher
Chief Executive Officer
May 28, 2015
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Entrade, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Peter R. Harvey, Principal Executive Officer, and Richard E. Mandra Principal Financial 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 the best of 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 the Company.

Date: June , 2008



By:

/s/ Peter R. HarveyPeter R. Harvey, Principal Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Richard E. MandaraRichard E. Mandra, Principal Financial Officer