alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #11736 and #11737]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1835-DR), dated 05/01/2009. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms, Flooding, Tornadoes, and Straight-line Winds. *Incident Period:*
                         03/25/2009 through 04/03/2009.
 DATES: *Effective Date:*
                         05/01/2009. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/30/2009. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         02/01/2010.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 05/01/2009, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*
                     Covington, Geneva, Houston. *Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):* Alabama: Butler, Coffee, Conecuh, Crenshaw, Dale, Escambia, Henry. Florida: Holmes, Jackson, Okaloosa, Walton. Georgia: Early, Seminole. *The Interest Rates are:* *For Physical Damage:* PercentHomeowners with credit available elsewhere
4.375Homeowners without credit available elsewhere
2.187Businesses with credit available elsewhere
6.000Other (including non-profit organizations) with credit available elsewhere
4.500Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere
4.000
 
 
 *For Economic Injury:* Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere: The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11736B and for economic injury is 117370. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E9-11030 Filed 5-11-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Sea Ranch Owners Ass’n v. Sea Ranch II, Inc.

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 226

No. 338P06

Defs Motion to Dissolve Stay and Renewal of Motion to Deny Petition for Writ of Supersedeas (COA05-1528, COA05-1559 and COA05-1593)

Denied 12/01/06

Martin, J., and Hudson, J., Recused
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 State

          - [Public Notice 9003]

Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Maulana Fazlullah also known as Mullah Fazlullah also known as Fazal Hayat also known as Mullah Radio, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.

                    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that “prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have                           ( print page 2772)                        a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,” I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.                

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: January 9, 2015.

John F. Kerry,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2015-00790 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
##### 



(BROOKFIELD LOGO)
    
    (BPO PROPERTIES LOGO)
 NEWS RELEASE
 BROOKFIELD CONSORTIUM ANNOUNCES NEW AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE
O&Y REIT AND A REVISED AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE O&Y PROPERTIES
 O&Y REIT Institutional Unitholders Enter into Lock-Up
Agreements in Support of Transaction
 TORONTO, August 26, 2005
 
    
    revised its agreement to acquire the shares of O&Y Properties Corporation (O&Y
Properties) (OYP: TSX); and
    
    entered into a new agreement to acquire the limited voting units (units) of O&Y Real
Estate Investment Trust (O&Y REIT) (OYR.UN: TSX)
  Agreement Terms
  
    
    the outstanding common shares of O&Y Properties at C$12.72 per share; and
    
    the outstanding units of O&Y REIT for C$16.25 per unit.




---



##### 



Support and Approvals for the Transactions
       Brookfield Properties Corporation
 2




---



##### 



www.brookfieldproperties.com
 BPO Properties Ltd., www.bpoproperties.com
 CPP Investment Board www.cppib.ca
 O&Y Properties Corporation
 O&Y Real Estate Investment Trust
 Contacts:
 Brookfield Properties and BPO Properties:
    
    CPP Investment Board:Melissa Coley
    
    John CappellettiTel: 212-417-7215
    
    Tel: 416-868-0308Email: mcoley@brookfieldproperties.com
    
    Email: jcappelletti@cppib.ca
 3




---



##### 



Note: This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section
27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended. The words believe, expect, anticipate, intend, estimate, and other
expressions which are predictions of or indicate future events and trends and which do not relate
to historical matters, identify forward looking statements. Reliance should not be placed on
forward-looking statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other
factors, which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the company to differ
materially from anticipated future results, performance or achievement expressed or implied by such
forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those
set forward in the forward-looking statements include general economic conditions, local real
estate conditions, timely re-leasing of occupied square footage upon expiration, interest rates,
availability of equity and debt financing and other risks detailed from time to time in the
companys 40-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company undertakes no
obligation to publicly update or revise any forward looking statements, whether as a result of new
information, future events or otherwise.
 4
665 A.2d 385

#### IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL G. MARINANGELI, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 19, 1995.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court on July 21, 1995, its decision concluding that MICHAEL G. MARINANGELI, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1984, should be suspended for a period of three years for violation of *RPC*8.4(b) and (c) (criminal act that reflects adversely on respondent’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), respondent having entered a guilty plea to one count of theft of mail, contrary to 18 *U.S.C.A.*§ 1708;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having concluded that the suspension should be retroactive to August 19, 1993, the date on which respondent was temporarily suspended from the practice of law on the basis of his conviction;

*488And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that respondent should not be reinstated to practice unless and until he is reinstated tó practice in New York, that his reinstatement should be conditioned on the submission of satisfactory proof by respondent that he is not using illicit drugs, that respondent should submit to screening for drug use on a schedule to be determined by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of one year subsequent to his reinstatement; and that respondent should, at the time of his application for reinstatement, submit satisfactory proof of his completion of the Core Courses of the Skills Training Series offered by the Institute for Continuing Legal Education;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MICHAEL G. MARINANGELI be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, the suspension to be retroactive to August 19, 1993; and it is further

ORDERED that no application for reinstatement to practice be filed unless and until respondent is reinstated to practice in New York and until respondent has demonstrated that he is free of drugs and has completed the Core Courses of the Skills Training Series offered by the Institute for Continuing Legal Education; and it is further

ORDERED that on reinstatement to practice in New Jersey respondent shall be screened for drug use on a schedule to be determined by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of one year and until further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that MICHAEL G. MARINANGELI shall continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall continue to comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended, disbarred or resigned attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that MICHAEL G. MARINANGELI reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs.
#### In the Matter of Steve Campbell, Appellant, v Andrea D. Evans, as Chair of the Division of Parole, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 771]

Garry, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Melkonian, J.), entered December 7, 2011 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole declaring petitioner delinquent under the terms of his parole.

Petitioner is currently imprisoned as the result of 1990 and 1994 robbery convictions. While on parole, he was convicted for drug offenses committed in December 2000 and July 2001 and sentenced to an additional aggregate prison term of 4 to 8 years. While he was not issued a notice of violation by the Board of Parole until August 2001, he was ultimately declared delinquent as of December 2000. He was released to parole supervision in 2007 and, two years later, was discharged from parole on the 2001 sentences *(see*Executive Law § 259-j former [3-a]; *see also*L 2004, ch 738, § 37). Petitioner’s sentence was accordingly recalculated, which resulted in a maximum expiration date of October 2, 2011.

He was thereafter arrested and charged with various drug offenses in March 2010, pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and was sentenced in January 2011 to serve an additional six years *1278in prison to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. After his conviction, the Board issued a final declaration of delinquency finding him delinquent as of March 2010. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the declaration of delinquency. Supreme Court dismissed the petition following joinder of issue, and petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. Petitioner does not dispute that the Board is generally free to declare a parolee delinquent as of “the date of arrest or the date of the commission of the crime, rather than the date of conviction” *(Matter of Jarrell v Rodriguez,*167 AD2d 776, 777 [1990], *lv denied*77 NY2d 806 [1991] *see*9 NYCRR 8004.3 [b]; *Matter of Cruz v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*288 AD2d 572, 573 [2001], *appeal dismissed*97 NY2d 725 [2002]; *Matter of Bonilla v Russi,*210 AD2d 828, 829 [1994]). He nevertheless argues that he should not have been declared delinquent—which interrupted the running of his sentence and altered its maximum expiration date—until the date he was sentenced upon his 2001 and 2011 convictions *(see*Penal Law § 70.40 [3]). We perceive nothing improper, however, in the Board’s decision to rely upon the arrest dates. To the extent that petitioner’s remaining claim is properly before us, we have considered it and found it to lack merit.

Peters, RJ., Stein and Spain, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2515

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Latoya Rose Hourston, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 30, 2004 Filed: June 10, 2005

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in this case, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). See Hourston v. United States , 125 S. Ct. 989 (2005), granting cert. and vacating the judgment in United States v. Hourston , No. 03-2515, 2004 WL 960034 (8th Cir. May 5, 2004) (unpublished per curiam). In Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 749-51, the Court held that sentence enhancements based solely on facts found by a court under mandatory federal sentencing guidelines violate the sixth amendment, which the Court then remedied by making the sentencing guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, id. at 764.1 The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- We have examined the relevant record and conclude that the defendant, Latoya Hourston, did not preserve a Booker issue, and that she is not entitled to plain-error relief because she cannot show that her substantial rights were affected, see United States v. Pirani , 406 F.3d 543, 550-53 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We therefore conclude that Booker did not affect our previous opinion in this case. Accordingly we reinstate our prior opinion and again affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. 1

______________________________
1

NO. 01-15-00759-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST DISTRICT 

AT HOUSTON, TEXAS 

Ada Ukah Brown, 

Appellant, 

v. 

Bright O. Wokocha, 

Appellee 

DESIGNATION OF LEAD COUNSEL 

Notice is hereby given of the designation of Attorney, Ijeoma Opara as lead counsel for 

Apellee, Bright O. Wokocha. Pursuant to Tex. R. Appellate P. 6, all further notice and copies of 

pleadings, papers and other material relevant to this action should be directed to and served upon: 

Ijeoma Opara, The Opara Law Firm, PLLC, 4420 Cypress Creek Parkway, Suite 103 Houston,

Texas 77068. 

 Respectfully Submitted: 

 

 By: /s/Ijeoma Opara 

 Ijeoma Opara 

 Email:Ijeoma@cheerful.com 

 TBN: 24029189 

 The Opara Law Firm, PLLC 

 4420 Cypress Creek Parkway,

 Suite 103 

 Houston, Texas 77068 

 Tel: 281-895-8003 

 Fax: 281-895-8079 

 Attorney for Appellee, 

 Bright Wokocha

ACCEPTED

01-15-00759-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

11/10/2015 4:41:57 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/10/2015 4:41:57 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3836 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 

Referred to the Committee on International Relations 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the United States Advisory Commission on 

Public Diplomacy. 

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 ‘‘United States Advisory 

5 Commission on Public Diplomacy Reauthorization Act of 

6 2006’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

S 3836 RFH 

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF UNITED STATES ADVISORY 

2 COMMISSION ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY. 

3 Section 1334 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Re4 structuring Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6553), as amended 

5 by section 410 of the Department of State and Related 

6 Agency Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–108; 

7 119 Stat. 2327), is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 

8 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2009’’. 

Passed the Senate August 3, 2006. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of the registrant are as follows:



|                                                   |  |                                                          
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                                                   |  | State or OtherJurisdiction ofIncorporation orOrganization
|                                                   | 
|Boise Inc.                                         |  | Delaware                                                 
|BZ Intermediate Holdings LLC (100%)                |  | Delaware                                                 
|Boise Paper Holdings, L.L.C. (100%)                |  | Delaware                                                 
|Boise Co-Issuer Company (100%)                     |  | Delaware                                                 
|Boise Finance Company (100%)                       |  | Delaware                                                 
|Boise Packaging & Newsprint, L.L.C. (100%)         |  | Delaware                                                 
|Louisiana Timber Procurement Company, L.L.C. (50%) |  | Delaware                                                 
|Boise White Paper, L.L.C. (100%)                   |  | Delaware                                                 
|Boise White Paper Sales Corp. (100%)               |  | Delaware                                                 
|Boise White Paper Holdings Corp. (100%)            |  | Delaware                                                 
|International Falls Power Company (100%)           |  | Delaware                                                 
|Minnesota, Dakota & Western Railway Company (100%) |  | Minnesota                                                
|Bemis Corporation (100%)                           |  | Delaware                                                 
|Boise Hong Kong Limited (100%)                     |  | Hong Kong                                                
|Boise Cascade Transportation Holdings Corp. (100%) |  | Delaware                                                 
|BCT, Inc. (100%)                                   |  | Delaware
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 15, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00423

- CV

INTEREST OF J.G.M ., a child,

From th e 166th Judicial District Cour t, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- PA

- 01833

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. Time is extended

to September 28, 2015.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of September, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Victor Woodard, Appellant, v William R. Lape, as Superintendent of Coxsackie Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[872 NYS2d 563]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lalor, J.), entered September 4, 2007 in Greene County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner is serving an aggregate prison term of 25 years to life following his 1993 conviction of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the first degree and his 1994 conviction of possession of burglar’s tools. The judgments of conviction were af*904firmed upon appeal *(People v Woodard,*234 AD2d 613 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 989 [1997], *cert denied*520 US 1266 [1997]; *People v Woodard,*221 AD2d 493 [1995], *lv denied*88 NY2d 888 [1996]) and petitioner thereafter brought numerous unsuccessful motions and applications to challenge those convictions *(see e.g. People ex rel. Woodard v Burge,*49 AD3d 1092 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 715 [2008]; *People ex rel. Woodard v Burge,*41 AD3d 1068 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 810 [2007]; *People ex rel. Woodard v Artus,*18 AD3d 1048 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 709 [2005])—including this application for a writ of habeas corpus, which Supreme Court denied.

Habeas corpus relief does not lie where the arguments advanced could have been raised either upon a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction or in the context of a collateral motion *(see People ex rel. Cropper v Taylor,*48 AD3d 852, 853 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 710 [2008]; *People ex rel. Encarnacion v McGinnis, 2*AD3d 933, 933 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 510 [2004]). Inasmuch as the issues presented herein could have been raised either upon petitioner’s direct appeal or in the context of his various CPL article 440 motions, petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, Supreme Court’s judgment is affirmed.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.