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

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. 

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 ‘‘Adoption Fairness 

5 Act’’. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3091 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CERTIFICATES OF CITI2 ZENSHIP FOR ADOPTED CHILDREN. 

3 Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

4 (8 U.S.C. 1431) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing new subsections: 

6 ‘‘(c) The Secretary of Homeland Security may not 

7 charge a fee for the issuance of a Certificate of Citizenship 

8 for a child who is adopted by a United States citizen par9 ent and who is eligible for automatic citizenship under 

10 subsection (b), regardless of whether the child’s adoption 

11 was finalized in the United States or in a foreign country. 

12 ‘‘(d) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall imple13 ment all reasonable measures to facilitate the timely 

14 issuance of a Certificate of Citizenship for a child who is 

15 adopted by a United States citizen parent and who is eligi16 ble for automatic citizenship under subsection (b).’’. 

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

18 CITIZENSHIP. 

19 Not later than 120 days after the date of the enact20 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 

21 submit to Congress a report— 

22 (1) on the Secretary’s process for issuing Cer23 tificates of Citizenship for children who are eligible 

24 for automatic citizenship under section 320(b) of the 

25 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

26 1431(b)); and 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3091 IS

1 (2) that includes the recommendations of the 

2 Secretary to streamline, simplify, and expedite the 

3 process to ensure the timely and efficient provision 

4 of such Certificates of Citizenship. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allen Colvin, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 527]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Valentino, J.), rendered April 3, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to allow him to present evidence that a codefendant wrote a letter admitting that he committed the crimes charged in the indictment. We reject that contention. It is well settled that, “before statements of a nontestifying third party are admissible as a declaration against penal interest, the proponent must satisfy the court that four prerequisites are met[, including that] . . . the declarant must be aware at the time of its making that the statement was contrary to his penal interest” *(People v Brensic,*70 NY2d 9, 15 [1987], *mot to amend remittitur granted*70 NY2d 722 [1987]; *see People v Shabazz,*22 NY3d 896, 898 [2013]). Here, defendant failed to establish that the author of the letter wrote it before pleading guilty, and defendant thus failed to establish that the admission contained in the letter was against the author’s penal interest when he wrote it *(see generally People v Ortiz,*81 AD3d 513, 514 [2011], *lv denied*16 NY3d 898 [2011]).

With respect to his contentions regarding the *Huntley*hearing, we note that defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court “unduly limited his cross-examination of a police officer concerning . . . statements” that defendant made to that officer *(People v Rookey,*292 AD2d 783, 783 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 701 [2002]). In any event, that contention is without merit. “It is well settled that ‘[a]n accused’s right to cross-examine witnesses ... is not absolute’ . . . [and that t]he trial court has discretion to determine the scope of the cross-examination of a witness” *(People v Corby,*6 NY3d 231, 234 [2005], quoting *People v Williams,*81 NY2d 303, 313 [1993]). *1349Here, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of defendant’s cross-examination of the officer at issue *(see People v Baker,*294 AD2d 888, 889 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 708 [2002]; *People v Herner,*212 AD2d 1042, 1045 [1995], *lv denied*85 NY2d 974 [1995]). Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Nicholas Carter certify that: 6. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Arabian American DevelopmentCompany;  7. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;  8. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;  9. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 10. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls overfinancial reporting.Date: March 31, 2006                                                  /s/ NICHOLAS CARTER   Nicholas Carter   Treasurer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 111 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13668]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special ARRA Revisions Competing Supplements.
    Date: July 16, 2009.
    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 920, Bethesda, MD 
20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: John K. Hayes, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 959, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-
3398, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#177f766e72647d577a767e7b39797e7f39707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abc3cad2ced8c1ebc6cac2c785c5c2c385ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.701, ARRA 
Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 4, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-13668 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT
      32.1





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 quarterly report of Web2 Corp. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on December 20, 2007 (the “Report”), I, William A.
      Mobley, Jr., 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 result of operations of the
                Company.






/s/
      William A. Mobley, Jr.





William
      A. Mobley, Jr.


Chief
      Executive Officer


December
      20, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 CNH Holdings  Company,  Inc.
(dba Cistera  Networks) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004,
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Cindy Garr, Interim C.F.O.of the Company,  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 and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/    Cindy Garr
Cindy Garr
C.F.O.,
Executive Vice-President of Corporate Development,
and Director
(Principal Financial Officer)


February 14, 2005


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Entergy
Louisiana's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1997 and 
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000060527
<NAME> ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC.
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER> 012
   <NAME> ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,382,254 
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    101,859
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         335,478 
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       355,809
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,175,400
<COMMON>                                     1,088,900
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       (2,321)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             46,766
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,133,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          155,000
<PREFERRED>                                    100,500
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,338,464
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   35,300
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     28,579
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                29,232
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,354,980
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,175,400
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,803,272
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            98,965
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,435,692
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,435,692
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        367,580
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 632
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 368,212
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       127,490
<NET-INCOME>                                   141,757
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     13,355
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  128,402
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       145,400
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      132,199
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         341,126
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
——— PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE ———

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN

VIA EMAIL
AND REGULAR MAIL

August 16, 2013 -

1441 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20005

Re: Electronic One Touch Bingo System

To whom it may concern:

I am writing on behalf of the Tribal Council of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe (the
“Tribe”) to provide the Tribe’s comments regarding the Department of the Interior’s
request for public comment regarding the National Indian Gaming Commission’s
(“NIGC’s”) proposed reinterpretation of its decision regarding the classification of one
touch bingo. The Tribe supports the NIGC’s proposed reinterpretation

The NIGC is proposing to overturn its earlier Metlakatla Decision, which held
that one touch bingo constitu‘es Class III rather than Class II gaming. The NIGC’s
rationale in the Metlakatla Decision was that one touch bingo is not Class II gaming
because one touch does not meet the essential requirement that a player cover the drawn
numbers on a bingo card and that the game be won by the first person to do so. The
Metlakatla Decision also concladed that one touch bingo is not a Class II “game similar
to bingo” because one touch biigo does not include the requisite element of competition.
The NIGC believes the more reasonable interpretation is that one touch bingo meets the
definition of Class II gaming because: (a) it is played for prizes; (b) “the holder of the
card covers [the] numbers or designations when the objects, similarly numbered or
designated, are drawn or electronically determined”; and (c) the machine assists the
player in being the first person to cover the designated arrangement, and the game is won

by the first person to cover the pre-designated winning pattern in the electronically linked
bingo system.

The Tribe agrees with the NIGC’s proposed reinterpretation, as it is the more
reasonable interpretation of IGRA’s definition of Class II gaming. The Tribe has
concluded for the same reasons that one touch bingo is a Class IT bingo game.

Thank you very much for your consideration. If I can be of any further assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact me at the number listed above.

1-800-572-7282

National Indian Gaming Commission 1

“— 7474 S.Camino De Oeste » Tucson, Arizona 85757 * Phone (520) 883-5010 * FAX (520) 883-5033 ———

Ss

Ww


Peter Yuc
Chairman
Pascua Yaqui Tribal Council
#### Frederick Cooper et al., Appellants, v Terry McInnes et al., Respondents.

[977 NYS2d 767]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (O’Shea, J.), entered February 14, 2013 in Chemung County, which, among other things, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order.

Plaintiffs commenced this negligence action alleging various injuries caused by exposure to lead paint when they were children residing in apartment buildings managed or owned by defendants. Defendants served a notice to have plaintiffs examined by psychologist Thomas Griffiths. Plaintiffs moved for a protective order disqualifying Griffiths as the examiner or, alternatively, precluding Griffiths from asking questions regarding “socioeconomics, eugenic[s] or euthenics” and permitting videotaping of the examination. Defendants cross-moved to preclude videotaping or observation of the examination by counsel. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ motion and partially granted defendants’ cross motion. The court, among other things, determined that plaintiffs could have counsel or a representative present during the examination provided that such person remained five feet behind the person being examined and “not use a computer, cell phone or other electronic device during the evaluation, and . . . not record the evaluation or speak with . . . Griffiths or anyone else during the evaluation.” Plaintiffs appeal.

We affirm. “ ‘[The] trial court has broad discretionary power in controlling discovery and disclosure’ ” *(Matter of Scaccia,*66 AD3d 1247, 1249 [2009], quoting *Allen v Krna,*282 AD2d 946, 947 [2001]). “Although we can substitute our discretion for that *1121of the trial court regarding disclosure, we typically limit our review to whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion” *(Herbenson v Carrols Corp.,*101 AD3d 1220, 1221 [2012] [citations omitted]). While plaintiffs’ counsel has dealt with Griffiths in previous cases and does not agree with his approach in lead exposure cases, nonetheless the record does not reflect a level of biased or unabashed antipathy by Griffiths such that it constituted an abuse of discretion for Supreme Court to permit defendants to use this expert *(see Lewis v John,*87 AD3d 564, 565-566 [2011]; *Noteboom v Shugrue,*306 AD2d 453, 453 [2003]; *cf. Pettway v Ogbonna,*261 AD2d 700, 700 [1999]). Nor are we persuaded that Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ request that Griffiths be precluded from inquiring about plaintiffs’ family history as part of his examination *(see Derr v Fleming,*106 AD3d 1240, 1243 [2013]; *Cunningham v Anderson,*85 AD3d 1370, 1374-1375 [2011], *lv dismissed and denied*17 NY3d 948 [2011]). Finally, Supreme Court acted well within its discretion in prohibiting video or audio recording of the psychological examinations since plaintiffs failed to establish sufficient special or unusual circumstances justifying such recording *(see Flores v Vescera,*105 AD3d 1340, 1340 [2013]; *Lamendola v Slocum,*148 AD2d 781, 781 [1989], *lv dismissed*74 NY2d 714 [1989]).

Peters, EJ., Rose and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    4,753,412
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    208,457
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         447,140
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       708,615
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,117,624
<COMMON>                                       178,162
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    1,246,804
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            558,208
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,983,174
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,997,400
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  38,300
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  114,711
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,984,039
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                6,117,624
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    2,292,798
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           192,015
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,711,859
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,903,874
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        388,924
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              20,990
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 409,914
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       141,592
<NET-INCOME>                                   128,437
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,016
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  127,421
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       170,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      107,432
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         627,959
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>