alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
B L A C K F E E T T R I B A L G A M I N G C O M M I S S I O N ^ ^

P. O . B o x 8 5 0 B r o w n i n g , M T 5 9 4 1 7 4 F G A M I N G * *

Ph: (406) 338-2249 Fax: (406) 338-7656 COMMISSION

August 21,2013

National Indian Gaming Commission

1441L Street NW., Suite 9100

Washington, DC 20005

RE: Comments - One Touch Bingo Proposed Regulations

Dear Chairwoman Stevens:

On June 25,2013, the National Indian Gaming Commission published a

proposed rule and request for comments to be submitted by August 26,2013.

The Blackfeet Gaming Commission hereby submits the following comments.

Background -

The Blackfeet Tribe does not have a Class HI compact with the State of Montana

and is the only tribe that has not had a Class HI compact. The Blackfeet has one

casino with all Class II machines. During Phil Hogan's reign, the Blackfeet

Gaming Commission repeatedly disagreed with his decisions and viewed his

decisions as fundamentally at odds with the nature of Class II gaming. It is with

this background that the Blackfeet Tribe writes these comments supporting and

applauding the National Indian Gaming Commission's decision to reinterpret

Phil Hogan's prior agency decision regarding the classification of server-based

electronic bingo system games that can be played utilizing one touch of a button.

CommentsIt is the Blackfeet Gaming Commission's understanding that the National Indian

Gaming Commission's proposed rule will classify one-touch bingo as Class II

gaming, reversing its previous position. One-touch bingo is a networked

electronic game in which the player must press only one button to wager and

play. This rule confirms that Class II Indian gaming facilities, which do not

require a tribal-state gaming compact, will be able to offer machines that more

closely resemble Class HI machines. The Blackfeet Gaming Commission is in full

support of NIGC's reinterpretation of this prior agency rule.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) defines Class II bingo as a game,

played electronically or otherwise, (1) for prizes, including money prizes, (2) in

which the player "covers" numbers to match numbers "drawn" by the system,
#### Lopez G. NEWHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 07-15673.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 21, 2009.

Lopez G. Newhall, Florence, AZ, pro se.

John L. Saccoman, Esq., AGAZ-Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.

*604Before: 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 **

Arizona state prisoner Lopez G. Newhall appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Newhall contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately explain the state’s final plea offer. Assuming that counsel’s performance was deficient, Newhall has nevertheless failed to show prejudice because he has not demonstrated that there was a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the plea offer to avoid a trial. *See Turner v. Calderon,*281 F.3d 851, 880 (9th Cir.2002); *see also Jones v. Wood,*114 F.3d 1002, 1012-13 (9th Cir.1997). Accordingly, the state court’s decision rejecting Newhall’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); *see also Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2507 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Primid QM–1260. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. GRAHAM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Primid QM–1260. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PRIMID QM–1260. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 N,N,N′,N′-Tetrakis(2- 

hydroxypropyl)adipamide 

(CAS No. 57843–53–5) (provided for in subheading 

3824.90.4090) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2507 IS

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3091 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3091

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit the Secretary 
    of Homeland Secretary from charging a fee for a Certificate of 
 Citizenship for a foreign-born child adopted within the United States 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2010

 Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Ms. Landrieu) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit the Secretary 
    of Homeland Secretary from charging a fee for a Certificate of 
 Citizenship for a foreign-born child adopted within the United States 
                        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 ``Adoption Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CERTIFICATES OF CITIZENSHIP FOR ADOPTED 
              CHILDREN.

    Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:
    ``(c) The Secretary of Homeland Security may not charge a fee for 
the issuance of a Certificate of Citizenship for a child who is adopted 
by a United States citizen parent and who is eligible for automatic 
citizenship under subsection (b), regardless of whether the child's 
adoption was finalized in the United States or in a foreign country.
    ``(d) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement all 
reasonable measures to facilitate the timely issuance of a Certificate 
of Citizenship for a child who is adopted by a United States citizen 
parent and who is eligible for automatic citizenship under subsection 
(b).''.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF CITIZENSHIP.

    Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to Congress a 
report--
            (1) on the Secretary's process for issuing Certificates of 
        Citizenship for children who are eligible for automatic 
        citizenship under section 320(b) of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431(b)); and
            (2) that includes the recommendations of the Secretary to 
        streamline, simplify, and expedite the process to ensure the 
        timely and efficient provision of such Certificates of 
        Citizenship.
                                 <all>
```
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Monday, July 13, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Monday, July 13, 2009, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Sallie Chavez. For more information please contact Ms. Chavez at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues. 

Dated: May 27, 2009. 

Shawn F. Collins, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-12735 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Document

Exhibit 10.1

FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND SHARED SERVICES AGREEMENT


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (this "Amendment") is entered into as of May 31, 2022, by and between Sonesta International Hotels Corporation, a Maryland corporation ("Sonesta"), and The RMR Group LLC, a Maryland limited liability company ("RMR LLC").
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Sonesta and RMR LLC are parties to an Amended and Restated Business Management and Shared Services Agreement, dated as of June 5, 2015 (the "Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement as herein provided;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the mutual receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Sonesta and RMR LLC hereby agree as follows:
1.Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by inserting the following new paragraph after subparagraph (p) thereof:
In addition, if requested by Sonesta, RMR LLC shall oversee capital projects, repositionings and renovations at Sonesta owned properties (such projects, repositionings and renovations, "Major Projects").
2.Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended by inserting the following new subparagraph at the end thereof:
(c) Sonesta shall pay RMR LLC a construction supervision fee (the "Construction Supervision Fee") with respect to any Major Projects equal to three percent (3%) of the costs of such Major Projects which shall include the costs of all related professional services and the cost of general conditions.  





– 2 –

The Construction Supervision Fee shall be due and payable periodically, as agreed by Sonesta and RMR LLC, based on actual costs incurred to date.
3.As amended hereby, the Agreement is ratified and confirmed and declared to be in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Amendment under seal as of the date above first written.
																					
					SONESTA INTERNATIONAL HOTELS CORPORATION

				
							
					By:	/s/ John G. Murray
	
						John G. Murray
	
						President and Chief Executive Officer
	
							
							
					THE RMR GROUP LLC
							
					By:	/s/ Matthew P. Jordan	
						Matthew P. Jordan	
						Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23
                                                                      ----------



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 Registration Nos. 33-60647, 33-40223, and 2-97434) pertaining to the
Stock Incentive Plan, Employees' Stock Incentive Plan, Employees' Incentive
Stock Option Plan, and Employees' Non-Qualified Stock Option and Stock
Appreciation Rights Plan of AMETEK, Inc., and to The AMETEK Savings and
Investment Plan, respectively, and in the related Prospectuses, of our report
dated January 23, 1996, with respect to the financial statements of AMETEK, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1995.


                                                  /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Philadelphia, PA                                  
March 22, 1996
# National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009

All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection.  On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world.  We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent.  My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs.  In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt.  I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America.  Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.

America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science.  In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals.  We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.

The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women.  On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law.  We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause.  History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.  I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

[FR Doc. E9-1361

Billing code 3195-W9-P
EXHIBIT 32








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In connection with the Quarterly Report of Realmark Property Investors Limited Partnership - VI A (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of the operations of the Partnership.




May 16, 2011
/s/ Joseph M. JaysonDate
Joseph M. JaysonIndividual General Partner,Principal Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TEHAL SINGH,

Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 12

- 71901 Agency No. A089

- 697

- 716

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2014 ** Before: LEAVY , FISHER, and N

. R

. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Tehal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8

* 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). 

# FILED

NOV 28 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 12

- 71901

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evid ence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the
REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility det ermination based on discrepancies between Singh’s testimony and record evidence regarding
whether he was a Christian in India and when his home was burned. See id .; s ee also Goel v. Gonzales , 49 0 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistency between testimonial and documentary evidence is proper basis for adverse credibility finding). Singh’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Further , substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Singh has not otherwise established a well

- founded fear of persecution country

- wide if he returns to India as a Christian. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); see also Prasad v. INS , 47 F.3d 336, 337

- 38, 340 (9th Cir. 1995) (rec ord must compel a finding of well

- founded fear). Thus, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Finally , Singh’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evid ence in the record that compels the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or3 12

- 71901

with the acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156

- 57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

COMFORCE Corporation: 

We consent to incorporation by reference in theregistration statements on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-47941) and Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-32271, 333-46787, 333-82199, 333-56962 and 333-104730) of COMFORCE Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated March 28, 2007,relating to the consolidated financial statements of COMFORCE Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and December 25, 2005, and for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, and therelated financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of COMFORCE Corporation. 

As discussedin our report dated March 28, 2007, the Company changed its method of quantifying errors in fiscal 2006 in accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, *Considering the Effects of Prior YearMisstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements* and adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004), *Share-Based Payment,* effective December 26,2005. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Melville, New York 

March 28, 2007
#### David M. COIA, Plaintiff, v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 08 1354.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Aug. 6, 2008.

David M. Coia, pro se.

*MEMORANDUM OPINION*

JOHN D. BATES, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a homeless veteran of the Navy, has filed a *pro se*complaint and an application to proceed *in forma pauperis.*His application will be granted, but his complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

*13The complaint seeks one billion dollars “to point out” that the Veterans Administration, now known as the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, is “a total waste of tax dollars[.][T]hey have no incentive to get proper living conditions for a veteran in USA. [T]hey use history of veteran to have their job but don’t represent them at all[.][T]hey do menial work that look[s] fair but read between the lines they are really against veterans[,] making them feel very expendable ... used[,] tossed aside[.] I[,] as a U.S. veteran (Navy) (handieapped)[,] was never helped to get a decent apartment.” (Compl. at 1.) “I say let[’]s obliterate VA para[s]ite.” *(Id.*at 3.)

While the complaint expresses extreme frustration with the failure of the Veterans Administration to help plaintiff locate acceptable safe housing or assist plaintiff in other ways, and describes deplorable living conditions for the homeless plaintiff, it does not identify any specific law that was violated or any specific benefit to which plaintiff was entitled but was denied. Furthermore, to the extent this *pro se*complaint might be read to state a claim for benefits to which plaintiff may be entitled as a veteran, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain that claim. The determination of veterans’ benefits is by law committed exclusively to the Secretary of the Veterans Administration and is not subject to judicial review by any district court. *See*38 U.S.C. § 511. The sole exception to this rule is where a plaintiff presents a facial attack on the constitutionality of an act of Congress relating to veterans’ benefits. *See Brown v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,*451 F.Supp.2d 273, 279-80 (D.Mass.2006) (discussing that a district court’s jurisdiction over issues relating to veterans benefits is limited to hearing a facial challenge to legislation affecting veterans’ benefits).

Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. A related Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.