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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 67

To provide temporary legal exemptions for certain land management activities 

of the Federal land management agencies undertaken in federally declared disaster areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Mr. HAYWORTH) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to 

the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined 

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To provide temporary legal exemptions for certain land management activities of the Federal land management agencies undertaken in federally declared disaster areas.

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 ‘‘Federally Declared 

5 Disaster Area Exemption Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 67 IH 

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN LAWS FOR 

2 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES UNDER3 TAKEN IN FEDERALLY DECLARED DISASTER 

4 AREAS. 

5 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

6 (1) FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY.—

7 The term ‘‘Federal land management agency’’ 

8 means the National Park Service, United States 

9 Forest Service, United States Fish and Wildlife 

10 Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. 

11 (2) FEDERALLY DECLARED DISASTER AREA.—

12 The term ‘‘federally declared disaster area’’ means 

13 an area covered by a Presidential declaration of 

14 major disaster issued under section 401 of the Rob15 ert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency As16 sistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170). 

17 (b) EXEMPTION.—Due to the extraordinary cir18 cumstances present in a federally declared disaster area, 

19 land management activities of the Federal land manage20 ment agencies undertaken in the federally declared dis21 aster area in response to the conditions that necessitated 

22 the Presidential declaration shall proceed immediately and 

23 to completion notwithstanding any other provision of law 

24 including, but not limited to, the National Environmental 

25 Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Na26 tional Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.). 
3

•HR 67 IH 

1 In addition, such activities shall not be subject to the no2 tice, comment, and appeal requirements of section 322 of 

3 Public Law 102–381 (commonly known as the Appeals 

4 Reform Act; 16 U.S.C. 1612 note) or to judicial review 

5 by any court of the United States. 

6 (c) DURATION.—Subsection (b) shall apply to a fed7 erally declared disaster area during the two-year period 

8 beginning on the date of the Presidential declaration and 

9 to any land management activity described in such sub10 section commenced in the area during such period.

Æ
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40491

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL C ANTONELLI

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL; R D MILES, Warden

Respondents-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CV-1121

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael C. Antonelli, federal prisoner 04053-164, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition, asserting that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had failed to comply with

the orders of the sentencing court that he be incarcerated in a BOP facility in

Minnesota where he could receive psychological testing and treatment. The

district court dismissed the petition, finding that the claims were not properly

presented under § 2241 and alternatively that Antonelli was not entitled to relief

on the merits of his allegations. On appeal, Antonelli contends that the district

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 18, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40491

2

court should have converted his § 2241 petition into the proper vehicle for

seeking relief. He also contends that the district court could grant him

injunctive, declaratory, or mandamus relief in habeas and that he was entitled

to relief under the Administrative Procedures Act or the Declaratory Judgment

Act.

Even if itis assumed that Antonelli’s challenge to his placement within the

BOP was properly presented under § 2241, or alternatively even if it is assumed

that the district court should have converted the § 2241 petition to a more

appropriate procedural vehicle, Antonelli has not established that he is entitled

to relief. A prisoner has no constitutional right to be housed in a particular

facility. See Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996). Although the

sentencing court may recommend a location of imprisonment, such a suggestion

is not binding on the BOP. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)(B); United States v. Voda,

994 F.2d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, Antonelli was not entitled to

declaratory, injunctive, mandamus, or habeas relief on the merits of his

allegations. The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4344

_____________________________

VERNON STEWART POLK,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Original Jurisdiction.

October 3, 2019

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

RAY, C.J., and WOLF and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Vernon Stewart Polk, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh
v. : Crim. No. 11-459
BLAS ERNERS ESPINAL-CABRERA, : ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

a/k/a “Hermano”

This matter having come before the Court on the joint
application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the
District of New Jersey (Mary E. Toscano, Special Assistant U.S.
Attorney, appearing), and defendant BLAS ERNERS ESPINAL-CABRERA
(Patrick J. Brackley, appearing), for an order granting a
continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter, and
the defendant being aware that he has the right to have the
matter brought to trial within 70 days of the date of his
appearance before a judicial officer of this court pursuant to
Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3161(c) (1), and as
the defendant has consented to such a continuance, and for good
and sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should
be continued for the following reasons:

(1) The parties request an opportunity for sufficient
time to review the evidence and engage in plea negotiations,
which would render any subsequent trial of this matter

unnecessary;


(2) Taking into account the exercise of diligence,
therefore, the facts of this case require that defense counsel be
permitted a reasonable amount of additional time to review the
evidence with the defendant, and should plea negotiations fail,
time for effective trial preparation in this matter.

(3) As a result of the foregoing, pursuant to Title 18,
United States Code, Section 3161(h) (7), the ends of justice
served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of
the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS, therefore, on this 24 day of October, 2011,

ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, continued
for a period of 60 days from September 30, 2011 to November 29,
2011; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from September 30, 2011 through

November 29, 2011 shall be excludable in computing time under the

LL AME

HON. DENNIS M. CA
United States Digeeice sage rict agfzict Su8se

Speedy Trial Act of 1974.



Form and entry
consented to:

Mary E. ‘toscano
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Patrick J. Brackley
Counsel for defendant BLAS ERNERS ESPINAL-CABRERA
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000884504
<NAME> THERMOENERGY CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         248,778
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               248,778
<PP&E>                                          19,809
<DEPRECIATION>                               ( 18,394)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 588,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,793,420
<BONDS>                                        456,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,487
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,663,993)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   588,914
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  216,474
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (261,420)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (261,420)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 628 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 628

 To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from purchasing certain steel or 
equipment, products, or systems made with steel that is not melted and 
                      poured in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2003

 Mr. Stupak (for himself and Mr. LaTourette) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from purchasing certain steel or 
equipment, products, or systems made with steel that is not melted and 
                      poured in the United States.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST PURCHASING CERTAIN STEEL NOT MELTED AND 
              POURED IN THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) Prohibition.--The Secretary of Defense may not purchase--
            (1) steel, or
            (2) equipment, products, or systems that are necessary to 
        national security or national defense and that are made with 
        steel,
that is not melted and poured in the United States except in cases in 
which the steel required for the intended use is not melted and poured 
in the United States.
    (b) National Security Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
with respect to a purchase that the Secretary of Defense determines is 
necessary for national security purposes.
                                 <all>
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

R.J.P., a Child,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

No. 4D15

- 1306

[August 12, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County; James L. Martz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502015DP300104

JO.

Liza R. Galindo of Law Office of Liza R. Galindo, P.A., Miami Springs,

for appellant.

Rosemarie Farrell, Orlando, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See O.I.C.L. v. Dep’t of Children and Families

, 2015 WL

4461164 (Fla. 4th DCA July 22, 2015).

G ROSS

, D AMOORGIAN and G ERBER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 699

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive study 

of the Rathdrum Prairie/Spokane Valley Aquifer, located in Idaho and 

Washington. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2003

Mr. NETHERCUTT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive study of the Rathdrum Prairie/Spokane Valley 

Aquifer, located in Idaho and Washington.

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

3 SECTION 1. COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RATHDRUM 

4 PRAIRIE/SPOKANE VALLEY AQUIFER. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior, in 

6 consultation with the State of Idaho and the State of 

7 Washington, shall conduct a comprehensive study of the 

8 Rathdrum Prairie/Spokane Valley Aquifer for the purpose 

9 of preparing a model of the aquifer and establishing for 
2

•HR 699 IH 

1 those States a mutually acceptable understanding of the 

2 aquifer as a ground water resource. 

3 (b) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit to the Con4 gress a report on the findings and conclusions of the study 

5 by not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment 

6 of this Act. 

7 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

8 For conducting the study under this Act there is au9 thorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $3,500,000.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Michael Boennighausen certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Conor Medsystems, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): 

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 31, 2005 

 

/s/    MICHAELBOENNIGHAUSEN                                        

Michael Boennighausen 

*Vice President,Finance and Administration and Chief*

*Financial Officer*******

(Principal Financial Officer)
71

Table 30. Job-related work at home on primary job: All workers by marital status, presence and age of children, 

(Numbers in thousands)

Total, 16 years and over........................ 136,602 20,673 15.1 16.2 49.3 33.7

Married, spouse present.................. 77,243 14,623 18.9 16.4 48.1 34.6

Not married.................................... 59,359 6,050 10.2 15.7 52.2 31.5

Never married......................... 36,857 3,087 8.4 17.7 58.1 23.2

Other marital status.................. 22,502 2,963 13.2 13.6 46.1 40.2

With own children under 18.............. 50,011 8,584 17.2 17.4 47.5 34.0

 With own children under 6......... 21,373 3,599 16.8 19.2 47.3 32.8

With no own children under 18......... 86,591 12,090 14.0 15.4 50.5 33.4

Total, 16 years and over........................ 64,185 9,893 15.4 17.8 51.4 29.4

Married, spouse present.................. 33,750 6,509 19.3 18.2 48.8 31.4

Not married................................... 30,435 3,384 11.1 17.1 56.5 25.5

Never married........................... 16,754 1,522 9.1 19.2 66.2 12.7

Other marital status.................. 13,681 1,862 13.6 15.3 48.6 35.9

With own children under 18.............. 24,108 4,051 16.8 19.9 46.6 31.5

 With own children under 6......... 9,331 1,614 17.3 23.4 42.6 32.6

With no own children under 18......... 40,077 5,842 14.6 16.3 54.8 27.9

Total, 16 years and over........................ 72,417 10,780 14.9 14.7 47.3 37.6

Married, spouse present................... 43,493 8,114 18.7 15.0 47.5 37.1

Not married................................... 28,924 2,666 9.2 13.9 46.8 39.1

Never married........................... 20,104 1,565 7.8 16.2 50.3 33.3

Other marital status.................. 8,820 1,101 12.5 10.5 41.8 47.4

With own children under 18................ 25,903 4,533 17.5 15.1 48.4 36.3

 With own children under 6......... 12,042 1,986 16.5 15.8 51.0 33.0

With no own children under 18......... 46,514 6,247 13.4 14.5 46.5 38.6

Unpaid

Total

Women

Men

sex, and pay status, May 2004

Characteristic Total employed3

Persons who usually worked at home1

Total Rate

Percent distribution by class of worker 2

Wage and salary

Self-employed 4

Paid

1 Persons who usually work at home are defined as those who

work at home at least once per week as part of their primary job. 2 Unpaid family workers and wage and salary workers who did

not report pay status are included in total but not shown separately. 3 Includes persons who did not provide information on work at

home. 4 Includes both the incorporated and unincorporated self-employed.

NOTE: Data refer to employed persons in nonagricultural industries. Own children include sons, daughters, stepchildren, and

adopted children. Not included are nieces, nephews, grandchildren,

and other related and unrelated children.

SOURCE: May 2004 Work at Home supplement to the Current

Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
# Number of Jobs, Labor Market Experience, Marital Status, and Health for those Born 1957-1964

The NLSY79 Cohort is a longitudinal project that follows the lives of a sample of American youth born between 1957-64. The cohort originally included 12,686 respondents ages 14-22 when first interviewed in 1979; after two subsamples were dropped, 9,964 respondents remain in the eligible samples. Data are now available from Round 1 (1979-80) to Round 29 (2020-21).

- Individuals born in the years 1957-1964 held 12.7 jobs from ages 18 to 56
- Persons born in the latter years of the baby boom average 12.4 jobs from ages 18 to 54
- Persons born in the latter years of the baby boom hold 12.3 jobs from ages 18 to 52
- Individuals born in the latter years of the baby boom held 11.9 jobs from ages 18 to 50
- Persons born in the latter years of the baby boom hold 11.7 jobs from ages 18 to 48
- Persons born in the latter years of the baby boom held 11.3 jobs from ages 18 to 46
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Board of Directors of SMTC Corporation

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-44250) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-33208) on Form
S-3 of SMTC Corporation of our report dated February 12, 2002, except as to note
24, which is as of March 19, 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of SMTC Corporation (formerly HTM Holdings, Inc.) as of December 31, 2000
and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2001, and the related financial statement schedule,
which report appears in the December 31, 2001, annual report on Form 10-K of
SMTC Corporation.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants
Toronto, Canada
March 27, 2002