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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 575 

To transfer the administration of the H–2A program from the Secretary 

of Labor to the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 26, 2023 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To transfer the administration of the H–2A program from 

the Secretary of Labor to the Secretary of Agriculture, 

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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Moving H–2A to 

5 United States Department of Agriculture Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATION OF H–2A PROGRAM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 218 of the Immigration 

8 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1188) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘Secretary of Labor’’ and in10 serting ‘‘Secretary of Agriculture’’; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 575 IH

1 (2) by striking ‘‘Attorney General’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Security’’. 

3 (b) TIMING.— 

4 (1) EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENTS.—The 

5 amendments made in subsection (a) shall take effect 

6 on the date that is 60 days after the date of the en7 actment of this section. 

8 (2) TRANSFER OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRA9 TION.—On the date that is 60 days after the date 

10 of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of 

11 Labor shall take such actions as are necessary to 

12 provide to the Secretary of Agriculture any per13 sonnel, funding, and other materials necessary to 

14 transfer administration of the H–2A program under 

15 section 218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

16 (8 U.S.C. 1188), to the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerry Dukes, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pécora, J.), rendered on April 15, 1983, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree *293and sentencing him, as a predicate felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 3 to 6 years, is unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his previously entered guilty plea or in declining to make further inquiry into the matter. The court afforded defendant ample opportunity to state the reason for his seeking withdrawal. However, defendant only alleged that he had been misinformed by counsel as to the effect upon sentencing of his status, as a second felony offender, and made otherwise conclusory assertions of a lack of understanding concerning the proceedings in which he had participated. These claims are insufficient to undermine the validity of a plea arrangement obtained with the benefit of counsel *(People v Billingsley,*54 NY2d 960, 961). Further, there is no support in the record for defendant’s argument that his attorney admitted misinforming him about his status. Accordingly, defendant’s allegation that he was deprived of "meaningful representation” is unpersuasive *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147). There is, similarly, no substance to defendant’s claim that the court erred in failing to examine his assertion that the complainant had threatened defendant in order to induce him to plead guilty. In that regard, defendant’s counsel advised the court that the purported threat had no impact upon defendant’s decision to enter a guilty plea, and, indeed, defendant twice agreed with this, immediately indicating that his plea was voluntary. The factual circumstances surrounding defendant’s plea reveal that no further inquiry was required. Moreover, this argument was not raised in connection with the motion to withdraw of the plea and, therefore, was not preserved for our review. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Station Casinos, Inc.Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

Pursuant to therequirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certify asfollows:

1.                 Glenn C.Christenson is the Chief Financial Officer of the Company (the “Company”).

2.                 The undersignedcertifies to the best of his knowledge:

(A)      The Company’s Form 10-Kfor the annual period ended December 31, 2004 accompanying thisCertification, in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”); and

(B)       Theinformation in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: March 15, 2005 |                                                                                                                                       |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  | /s/ GLENN C. CHRISTENSON                                                                                                                   |
|                  | Glenn C. Christenson*Executive Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and  Chief Administrative Officer  (Principal Accounting Officer)* |

 

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0517 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SHANE CLARK JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 13, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 6 2022

04/06/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0517
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**I, Randal B. Tofteland, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SoftBrands, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ RANDAL B. TOFTELAND   Randal B. Tofteland  *President and Chief Executive Officer*  February 14, 2007
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE EXEQUIEL ALVARES

CATALAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-70533

Agency No. A072-519-613

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 23, 2014** 

Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Jose Exequiel Alvares Catalan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from

the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

FILED

OCT 3 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,

1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for

review.

Alvares Catalan does not raise any contentions regarding past persecution. 

See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

The IJ denied Alvares Catalan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims

because he did not articulate a particular social group or otherwise identify a

protected ground on the basis of which he fears persecution. See Zetino v. Holder,

622 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2010). We lack jurisdiction to review Alvares

Catalan’s contention, raised for the first time before this court, that he is a member

of a particular social group comprised of his family. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358

F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not raised

to the agency). Apart from this contention, Alvares Catalan does not otherwise

challenge the IJ’s nexus finding. Thus, we deny the petition as to Alvares

Catalan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Alvares Catalan failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be

2 13-70533
tortured by the Guatemalan government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See

Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

3 13-70533
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6371

PAUL E. SEELIG, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

GEORGE T. SOLOMON, 

Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-hc-02030-FL) 

Submitted: August 31, 2017 Decided: September 15, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Paul E. Seelig, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Paul E. Seelig seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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) (2012). 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 Seelig has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### In the Interest of M.A.D. & M.R.D. A.D. (Natural Mother), Appellant, v. Cathryn SMITH, Juvenile Officer, Respondent.

No. WD 51711.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Submitted Aug. 30, 1996.

Decided Dec. 17, 1996.

R. Christine Stallings, Bethany, for appellant.

James G. Spencer, Milan, William S. Lewis, Trenton, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

A.D., the natural mother of M.A.D. and M.R.D., appeals the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights to the two minor children.

The judgment is affirmed. The decision is without precedential value. A memorandum as to the basis of the decision has been furnished to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).
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

DANIEL DE JESUS SALAMANCA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71569

Agency No. A095-791-992

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Daniel de Jesus Salamanca, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro

se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, affirming the

immigration judge’s denial of his application for withholding of removal, and the

pretermission of the asylum application for untimeliness.

FILED

JUN 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71569

Salamanca contends that he suffered past persecution, and fears future

persecution because his uncle killed petitioner’s father in a dispute over land, and

threatened to kill petitioner after the uncle was released from prison. The record

does not compel the conclusion that Salamanca was persecuted or feared

persecution on account of a protected ground. Salamanca’s asylum claim was

pretermitted as untimely, and his withholding claim fails because petitioner failed

to establish any nexus between the claimed persecution and a protected ground for

purposes of withholding of removal. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,

482-83 (1992). 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Salamanca’s claim raised for the first time

on appeal, that his family constituted a social group, because petitioner failed to

administratively exhaust the claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th

Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
**EXHIBIT31.01**

**Rule13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications**

I, Robert D.Ollwerther, Chief Executive Officer and President of Merrill Lynch AlternativeInvestments LLC, the manager of ML Appleton FuturesAccess LLC, certify that:

1. Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of ML Appleton FuturesAccess LLC;

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November14, 2007
| By                                     | /s/ ROBERT D.  OLLWERTHER |   |
|----------------------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
| Robert D.  Ollwerther                  |
| Chief Executive  Officer and President |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 1996)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Pages 2001-2002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1145]








NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

Quarterly Meeting

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of the 
forthcoming quarterly meeting of the National Council on Disability. 
Notice of this meeting is required under section 522b(e)(1) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, (P.L. 94-409).

DATES: March 4-6, 1996, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

LOCATION: Sherton City Centre Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20037; (202) 775-0800.

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark S. Quigley, Public Affairs Specialist, National Council on 
Disability, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20004-1107; 
(202) 272-2004 (Voice), (202) 272-2074 (TT), (202) 272-2022 (Fax).

AGENCY MISSION: The National Council on Disability is an independent 
federal agency led by 15 members appointed by the President of the 
United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The overall purpose of 
the National Council is to promote policies, programs, practices, and 
procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all people with 
disabilities, regardless of the nature of severity of the disability; 
and to empower people with disabilities to achieve economic self-
sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all 
aspects of society.

ACCOMMODATIONS: Those needing interpreters or other accommodations 
should notify the National Council on Disability prior to this meeting.

ENVIRONMENTAL ILLNESS: People with environmental illness must reduce 
their exposure to volatile chemical substances in order to attend this 

[[Page 2002]]
meeting. In order to reduce such exposure, we ask that you not wear 
perfumes or scents at the meeting. We also ask that you smoke only in 
designated areas and the privacy of your room. Smoking is prohibited in 
the meeting room and surrounding area.

OPEN MEETING: This quarterly meeting of the National Council shall be 
open to the public.

AGENDA: The proposed agenda includes:

    Reports from the Chairperson and the Executive Director.
    Committee Meetings and Committee Reports.
    National Disability Policy: A Progress Report Update.
    National Summit on Disability Policy Update.
    Unfinished Business.
    New Business.
    Announcements.
    Adjournment.

    Records shall be kept of all National Council proceedings and shall 
be available after the meeting for public inspection at the National 
Council on Disability.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on January 19, 1996.
Ethel D. Briggs,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 96-1145 Filed 1-20-96; 2:55 pm]

BILLING CODE 6820-BS-M
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.18 OF THE POOLING AND SERVICING
                      AGREEMENT DATED AS OF APRIL 27, 1999


                    BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.
                MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 1999-4


I, Robert S. O'Neill, Senior Vice President of Bank of America, N.A. (the
"Servicer"), Subservicer for BA Mortgage, LLC, successor in interest by merger
of NationsBanc Mortgage Corporation (the "Servicer"), the Servicer in connection
with Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 1999-4, do hereby certify that
(i) a review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar
year and of its performance under this Agreement (the "Agreement") has been made
under my supervision, (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review,
the Servicer has fulfilled in all material aspects its obligations under the
Agreement throughout such year.

Certified on this 4th day of March 2003.

                                    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.


                                       By:
                                          ------------------------------
                                            Name:  Robert S. O'Neill
                                            Title: Senior Vice President


Inv M53