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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2851

To amend the Farm Credit Act of 1971 to establish certain conditions 

under which a Farm Credit System institution can terminate its status 

as a System institution. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL

To amend the Farm Credit Act of 1971 to establish certain 

conditions under which a Farm Credit System institution 

can terminate its status as a System institution.

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF FARM CREDIT SYSTEM STA4 TUS. 

5 Section 7.10 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 

6 U.S.C. 2279d) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(c) CONDITIONS FOR CERTAIN TERMINATION.—

9 Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), if the Farm 
2

•S 2851 IS 

1 Credit Administration Board receives an official notifica2 tion that a Farm Credit System institution seeks to termi3 nate its status as a System institution, the Farm Credit 

4 Administration—

5 ‘‘(1) shall hold not less than 1 public meeting 

6 or hearing in each of the States served, as of the 

7 date of receipt of the notification, by the institution; 

8 and 

9 ‘‘(2) shall not approve or disapprove the termi10 nation of the institution as a System institution 

11 under subsection (a)(2) until on or after the date 

12 that is 180 days after the date of receipt of the noti13 fication.’’.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6551

ALONZO R. BRINKLEY, II, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

JON OZMINT, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief 

District Judge. (6:08-cv-00308-JFA) 

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 25, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Donald Mitchell Brown, Jr., BROWN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. William Edgar Salter, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Alonzo R. Brinkley, II, seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing Brinkley’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition 

as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brinkley 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 the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Monika Luabeya","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mluabeya\/","title":"Reflection","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Y7CYEvNoV7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/afs-8-101-470\/\">Reflection<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/afs-8-101-470\/embed\/#?secret=Y7CYEvNoV7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Reflection” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Y7CYEvNoV7\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/ksc-20210111-ph-jbs01-0072orig.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":394}
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

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4188-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Washington (FEMA-4188-DR), dated August 11, 2014, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         September 12, 2014.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Washington is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 11, 2014.

Kittitas County for Public Assistance.

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; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2014-25075 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Danny PRICE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-7975.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 10, 2005.

Decided: March 15, 2005.

Danny Price, Appellant pro se.

Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Danny Price seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would *127find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Price 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1007

In re: HENRY EARL MILLER, a/k/a Stef, a/k/a Stefan , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ( 6:04

- cr - 00022

- JMC

- 3 ; 6:17

- cv - 00805

- JMC )

Submitted : February 22, 2018 Decided: February 27, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Henry Earl Miller , Petitioner Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Henry Earl Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and motion for bond pending resolution of h is habeas motion . He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petitio n. 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.
PETITION DENIED
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HILLARD PHILLIPS.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KENDALL R. WILLIAMS.

June 27, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25164]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 8927]


In the Matter of the Designation of Hakimullah Mehsud as a 
Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of 
Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    In accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of 
September 23, 2001, as amended (``the Order''), I hereby determine that 
the individual known as Hakimullah Mehsud, also known as other aliases 
and transliterations, no longer meets the criteria for designation 
under the Order, and therefore I hereby revoke the designation of the 
aforementioned individual as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist 
pursuant to section 1(b) of the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: September 29, 2014.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-25164 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
#### COOK BIOTECH INCORPORATED and Purdue Research Foundation, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ACELL, INCORPORATED, Stephen F. Badylak, and Alan R. Spievack, Defendants-Petitioners.

No. 775.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 29, 2004.

Before MICHEL, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

ACell, Incorporated et al. (ACell) petition for permission to appeal the order certified by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana as one involving a controlling issue of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and for which an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), (c)(1). Cook Bio-tech Incorporated and Purdue Research Foundation (Cook) oppose. ACell replies.

ACell seeks permission to appeal an order that construed certain claim language and adopted jury instructions proposed by Cook. The district court denied ACell’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, noting that discovery is not completed. Trial is scheduled to begin May 31, 2005. In its petition for permission to appeal, ACell suggests accelerating the briefing schedule so that this appeal could be decided before the scheduled trial date.

This court must exercise its own discretion in deciding whether it will grant permission to appeal an interlocutory order certified by a trial court. *See In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litigation,*903 F.2d 822 (Fed.Cir.1990); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2) (“the Federal Circuit may, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order”). We determine that granting the petition in these circumstances is not warranted.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

*969The petition for permission to appeal is denied.
Exhibit I 

Case 2:15-cv-01856-BSB Document 53-9 Filed 12/30/16 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:15-cv-01856-BSB Document 53-9 Filed 12/30/16 Page 2 of 2
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMBoard of DirectorsRoyal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc.     and SubsidiariesWe have audited the accompanying consolidated statement of income, stockholders’ equity and cashflows of Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,2003. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtainreasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. TheCompany is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, and audit of its internal controlover financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financialreporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, butnot for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includesexamining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financialstatements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management,as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our auditsprovide a reasonable basis for our opinion.In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all materialrespects, the consolidated results of operations and cash flows of Royal Bancshares ofPennsylvania, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2003, in conformity withaccounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America./s/ Grant Thornton LLP
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    Pursuant to the Commission's direct rule (79 FR 56522, September 22, 2014), beginning October 20, 2014, these notices will no longer be posted in the                     **Federal Register**                    . After October 20, 2014, this information will be available on the Commission's Web site at                     *http://www.fmc.gov,*                     see                     *OTI Licensing Updates.*

                    The Commission gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation                           ( print page 63123)                        Intermediary licenses have been revoked or surrendered for the reason indicated pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101) effective on the date shown.                

*License No.:*                     018655N.                

*Name:*                     Triship Global Logistics, Inc.                

*Address:*                     7400 SW 50th Terrace, Suite 207, Miami, FL 33155.                

*Date Revoked:*                     October 2, 2014.                

*Reason:*                     Failed to maintain a valid bond.                

*License No.:*                     019581N.                

*Name:*                     Four Seasons Logistics Inc.                

*Address:*                     22-30 119th Street, College Point, NY 11356.                

*Date Revoked:*                     October 3, 2014.                

*Reason:*                     Failed to maintain a valid bond.                

Sandra L. Kusumoto, 

Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.

[FR Doc. 2014-25122 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Nathan Cranford","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nathan-a-cranfordnasa-gov\/","title":"NEK and SIRIUS","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"aDsaCF315U\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/nek-and-sirius\/\">NEK and SIRIUS<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/nek-and-sirius\/embed\/#?secret=aDsaCF315U\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NEK and SIRIUS” — NASA\" data-secret=\"aDsaCF315U\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/sirius-3.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}