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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 435 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 435

 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the 
Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut for study 
 for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 17, 2005

Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mr. Lieberman) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the 
Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut for study 
 for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lower Farmington River and Salmon 
Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL SEGMENT OF FARMINGTON RIVER AND 
              SALMON BROOK IN CONNECTICUT FOR STUDY FOR POTENTIAL 
              ADDITION TO NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM.

    (a) Designation.--Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(139) Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook, Connecticut.--The 
segment of the Farmington River downstream from the segment designated 
as a recreational river by section 3(a)(156) to its confluence with the 
Connecticut River, and the segment of the Salmon Brook including its 
mainstream and east and west branches.''.
    (b) Time for Submission.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to 
Congress a report containing the results of the study required by the 
amendment made by subsection (a).
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Rendace, Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 115]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), entered January 30, 2007, which, after a hearing, designated him a level one sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After the defendant, a resident of New York, was convicted of an offense in New Jersey, the New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter the Board) determined, pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law § 168 *et seq.),*that he was a sex offender and was required to register *(see*Correction Law § 168-k [2]). A proceeding was commenced in the Supreme Court to determine the defendant’s risk level, during which the defendant asserted that the Board erred in determining that he was a sex offender. He declined, however, to raise this contention by bringing a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 against the Board. A proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 is the only proper vehicle by which to raise a challenge to the Board’s determination under Correction Law § 168-k (2) that a person convicted of an offense out of New York State is required to register as a sex offender *(see People v Geier,*56 AD3d 539 [2008]; *People v Pride,*37 AD3d 957, 958 [2007]; *People v Stafford,*32 AD3d 1133, 1134 [2006]; *Matter of Churuti v Devane,*29 AD3d 1139, 1142 [2006]; *People v Wil*
      *822
      *liams,*24 AD3d 894, 895 [2005]; *People v Carabello,*309 AD2d 1227, 1228 [2003]; *cf. Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y.,*8 NY3d 745 [2007]).

Inasmuch as the defendant does not raise any issue with respect to the Supreme Court’s risk level designation made in the order entered January 30, 2007, the order appealed from must be affirmed. Fisher, J.E, Florio, Garni and Chambers, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 13.1

                            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 Annual Report of Videotron Ltee (the "Company")
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Depatie,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: March 24, 2005

                                                  /s/ Robert Depatie
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                      Robert Depatie
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11462]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-51-000]


Boralex Ashland LP Complainant, v. ISO New England Inc. 
Respondent; Notice of Complaint

May 11, 2009.
    Take notice that on May 5, 2009, Boralex Ashland LP (Boralex 
Ashland) filed a complaint against ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) 
pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act. Boralex Ashland 
alleges that ISO-NE failed to ensure that Boralex Ashland is afforded 
transmission priority for capacity imports over the New Brunswick 
interface pursuant to the terms of a grandfathered transmission service 
agreement between Boralex Ashland and Maine Electric Power Company, 
Inc., (MEPCO).
    Boralex Ashland certifies that copies of the complaint were served 
on ISO-NE, MEPCO and affected state public utility commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's 
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before 
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and 
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public 
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the 
Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a 
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any 
FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1e7e4f3e2eecfcdc8cfc4f2d4d1d1ced3d5e1c7c4d3c28fc6ced7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ecaaa9beafa38280858289bf999c9c839e98ac8a899e8fc28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>, or call 
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 26, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11462 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 440 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to include podiatrists as 

physicians for purposes of covering physicians services under the medicaid 

program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2005 

Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Ms. MIKULSKI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to include 

podiatrists as physicians for purposes of covering physicians services under the medicaid program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCLUDING PODIATRISTS AS PHYSICIANS 

4 UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905(a)(5)(A) of the So6 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(5)(A)) is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘section 1861(r)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘para8 graphs (1) and (3) of section 1861(r)’’. 
2 

•S 440 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply to services furnished on or after 

3 January 1, 2006. 

Æ
| 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the    Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                       |        |                     |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                                       |   |                     |   |
| Dated: April      15,  2010 | By:    | /s/      John P. Messina |   |
|                                       |   | John      P. Messina     |   |
|                                       |   | President                |   |

----
(January 13, 2009)

#### John Lucente, Respondent, v Riverbay Corporation et al., Appellants.

[872 NYS2d 11]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered April 28, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff fell in a dark stairwell in defendants’ building during the blackout of August 14, 2003, denied defendants’ motion to renew their motion for summary judg*452ment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for a stay of trial pending issuance of the Court of Appeals’ decision in *Kopsachilis v 130 E. 18 Owners Corp.*(43 AD3d 744 [2007], *revd*11 NY3d 512 [2008]), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ initial motion for summary judgment was denied as untimely by an order dated April 27, 2006 (CPLR 3212 [a]), which defendants did not appeal. By order to show cause dated December 31, 2007, defendants moved to renew their summary judgment motion, arguing that this Court’s decision in *Viera v Riverbay Corp.*(44 AD3d 577 [Oct. 30, 2007]) effected a change in the law that would necessarily change the court’s denial of summary judgment (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Our decision in *Viera,*however, addressed whether, under the circumstances therein, defendant had a duty under common-law principles of premises liability to provide stairwell lighting during a blackout (44 AD3d at 579); in no manner did that decision involve the timeliness of a summary judgment motion. Furthermore, we decline to address the import of *Viera*for this case given the untimeliness of the motion. Nor did the stay of trial we issued on January 4, 2007 (2007 NY Slip Op 60256[U] [2007]) in connection with defendants’ appeal from the denial of their motion to consolidate this action with *Viera*have any impact on the time limit for filing a motion for summary judgment. The motion court’s statement in its decision denying renewal that even if renewal were granted questions of fact would remain that preclude the granting of summary judgment in defendants’ favor is dictum, is unrelated to the untimeliness of defendants’ initial motion, and does not provide a basis for taking an appeal *(see Edge Mgt. Consulting v Irmas,*306 AD2d 69 [2003]; *Schuster v Schweitzer,*203 AD2d 552 [1994]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Sweeny, Catterson, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.
#### Markus EFFENDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70401.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 26, 2009.

Anthony Wilaras, Law Offices of Anthony Wilaras, Artesia, CA, for Petitioner.

District Director, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael Christopher Heyse, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department Of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Markus Effendi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing an appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary circumstances excused Effendi’s untimely filed asylum application. *See*8 C.F.R. §§ 208.4(a)(4), (5); *Ramadan v. Gonzales,*479 F.3d 646, 649-50 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to the asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Effendi is not entitled to CAT relief because Effendi did not present evidence demonstrating a clear probability that he would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, public officials or persons acting in an official capacity if he returns to Indonesia. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).

The BIA erred in holding that disfavored group analysis was inapplicable to *629Effendi’s withholding of removal claim, so we remand for reconsideration of this claim. *See INS v. Ventura,*587 U.S. 12, 16-18, 128 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam); *Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1067.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60490

Summary Calendar

NANCY ELIZABETH SOLIS ROMERO, also known as Nancy E. Solis Romero,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A208 143 231

Before DAVIS, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nancy Elizabeth Solis Romero, a native and citizen of Honduras, 

challenges an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the 

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Solis Romero 

claims the IJ’s conduct of her removal hearing violated her due process rights. 

Solis Romero argues that she was denied a full and fair hearing when the IJ:

 

* 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

April 29, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60490 Document: 00514933482 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2019
No. 18-60490

2

failed to admit and review late-filed evidence; breached the “special duty” owed 

to an unrepresented claimant; afforded too much weight to records of her 

credible fear interview; and exhibited unconstitutional bias.

Solis Romero did not raise most of these claims with the BIA. We lack 

jurisdiction to review them because she failed to exhaust available 

administrative remedies. Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 319 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Solis Romero preserved the argument that the IJ owed her a “special duty” 

because she appeared pro se. She has not shown any violation of the IJ’s duty 

to develop a factual record without “tak[ing] on the role of an advocate” for an 

unrepresented alien. See In Re J.F.F., 23 I. & N. Dec. 912, 922 (B.I.A. 2006).

Accordingly, Solis Romero’s petition is DISMISSED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART.

 Case: 18-60490 Document: 00514933482 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2019
II 

Calendar No. 144 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 590 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

750 4th Street in Sparks, Nevada, as the ‘‘Mayor Tony Armstrong 

Memorial Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 10, 2005 

Mr. ENSIGN (for himself and Mr. REID) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 29, 2005 

Committee discharged and ordered to be placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 750 4th Street in Sparks, Nevada, as the 

‘‘Mayor Tony Armstrong Memorial Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MAYOR TONY ARMSTRONG MEMORIAL POST 

4 OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 750 4th Street in Sparks, Ne-
2 

S 590 PCS 

1 vada, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Mayor Tony 

2 Armstrong Memorial Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Mayor Tony Arm7 strong Memorial Post Office’’. 

Calendar No. 144 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 590 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postrial Post Office’’. Nevada, as the ‘‘Mayor Tony Armstrong Memo- al Service located at 750 4th Street in Sparks, 

JUNE 29, 2005 

Committee discharged and ordered to be placed on the 

calendar
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, as C.E.O., certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: February 16, 2010 |                                |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                         |                                |
| Signature:                   | /s/ Calvin A. Wallen, III      |   |
|                         | Calvin A. Wallen, III,  C.E.O. |   |

 

----
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 48 

To reauthorize appropriations for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail 

Route, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. CORZINE) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize appropriations for the New Jersey Coastal 

Heritage Trail Route, 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. REAUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

4 NEW JERSEY COASTAL HERITAGE TRAIL 

5 ROUTE. 

6 (a) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 6 of Public Law 

7 100–515 (16 U.S.C. 1244 note) is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking 

9 ‘‘$4,000,000’’ and all that follows and inserting 

10 ‘‘such sums as are necessary’’; and 
2 

•S 48 IS

1 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘10’’ and in2 serting ‘‘12’’. 

3 (b) STRATEGIC PLAN.— 

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after 

5 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

6 the Interior shall prepare a strategic plan for the 

7 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route. 

8 (2) CONTENTS.—The strategic plan shall de9 scribe— 

10 (A) opportunities to increase participation 

11 by national and local private and public inter12 ests in the planning, development, and adminis13 tration of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage 

14 Trail Route; and 

15 (B) organizational options for sustaining 

16 the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route. 

Æ 
2 

•S 48 IS

1 (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking 

2 ‘‘$4,000,000’’ and all that follows and inserting 

3 ‘‘such sums as are necessary’’; and 

4 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘10’’ and in5 serting ‘‘12’’. 

6 (b) STRATEGIC PLAN.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after 

8 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

9 the Interior shall prepare a strategic plan for the 

10 New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route. 

11 (2) CONTENTS.—The strategic plan shall de12 scribe— 

13 (A) opportunities to increase participation 

14 by national and local private and public inter15 ests in the planning, development, and adminis16 tration of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage 

17 Trail Route; and 

18 (B) organizational options for sustaining 

19 the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route. 

Æ