alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17779]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

33 CFR Part 209

[COE-2016-0016]
RIN 0710-AA72


Use of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir Projects for 
Domestic, Municipal & Industrial Water Supply

AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is reopening the 
public comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking that 
appeared in the Federal Register of December 16, 2016.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published December 16, 
2016 at 81 FR 91556 and extended to August 18, 2017 at 82 FR 22452 is 
reopened until November 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or 
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by any of the following 
methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#31666263647d74030100077144425052541f50435c481f5c585d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5f080c0d0a131a6d6f6e691f2a2c3e3c3a713e2d322671323633">[email protected]</span></a>. Include the docket number, COE-
2016-0016, in the subject line of the message.
    Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CECC-L, U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, 441 G St NW., Washington, DC 20314.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to security requirements, we cannot 
receive comments by hand delivery or courier.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical information: Jim Fredericks, 
503-808-3856. Legal information: Daniel Inkelas, 202-761-0345.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to requests from multiple 
parties, USACE is extending the time for public comments to November 
16, 2017. The date listed in the DATES section by which comments must 
be received is changed from August 18, 2017 to November 16, 2017.

    Dated: August 17, 2017.
David R. Cooper,
Chief Counsel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[FR Doc. 2017-17779 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3720-58-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Argued and submitted April 4,

reversed May 21, 2008

#### Olivia Anne WYTCHERLY, Petitioner-Respondent, *v.*Richard Larry LACEY, *Respondent-Appellant.*

Josephine County Circuit Court

06CV0694; A133783

185 P3d 530

Claud Ingram argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

*225-aBefore Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*226PER CURIAM

 Respondent appeals a stalking protective order (SPO) that the trial court entered against him. We review the facts supporting the SPO *de novo. Hanzo v. deParrie,*152 Or App 525, 536-37, 953 P2d 1130 (1998), *rev den,*328 Or 418 (1999). The court entered the order on the basis of a series of contacts that respondent had with petitioner in the community in which both of them lived and worked in Josephine County. Each contact on which the court relied in imposing the order arose out of legal, business, or social activities that brought petitioner and respondent together. For example, two of the five contacts occurred as a result of visits by respondent to the bank at which he banked and petitioner worked. In the course of the contacts, respondent made offensive and demeaning statements to petitioner, but he did not make any statement that could reasonably be construed to be a threat to harm petitioner physically.

Under the SPO statutes, ORS 30.866 and ORS 163.730 to 163.732, as construed in *State v. Rangel,*328 Or 294, 301-06, 977 P2d 379 (1999), and *Hanzo,*152 Or App at 542-44, an SPO can be entered for contacts involving expression only if the expression at issue communicated an unambiguous and unequivocal threat to cause serious physical injury to the petitioner or a member of the petitioner’s family or household. Given the statements at issue here and the ill will between the parties, it is understandable that petitioner did not want to have any contact with respondent. Nevertheless, the statements made by respondent in the course of his contacts with petitioner were not statements that meet the standard for issuance of an SPO. Consequently, the court erred in entering the SPO against respondent.

Reversed.
Submitted May 2,

reversed June 11, 2008

#### In the Matter of J. S. K., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*J. S. K., *Appellant.*

Lane County Circuit Court

300614656; A133120

186 P3d 324

James A. Palmer filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Nick M. Kallstrom, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*450PER CURIAM

Appellant in this mental commitment case appeals a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division for treatment for a period of time not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. The trial court found that appellant suffers from a mental disorder and is a danger to others. The state concedes that the record lacks clear and convincing evidence that defendant’s mental disorder causes him to be a danger to others. On *de novo*review, we find the state’s concession to be well founded and accept it.

Reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 364 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 364

    Of inquiry requesting the President to transmit to the House of 
 Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of 
   this resolution the report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
  entitled ``Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned'' and 
documents in his possession on the reconstruction and security of post-
                               war Iraq.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2003

Mr. Wexler (for himself, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Meeks of New 
 York, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Lee, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Farr, 
 Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Engel, Ms. Watson, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Hastings of 
 Florida, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Meehan, Mr. George Miller of 
 California, Mr. Berman, Mr. Tierney, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
   Grijalva, Mr. Markey, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Bell, and Mrs. Maloney) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
 on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on International 
 Relations, 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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Of inquiry requesting the President to transmit to the House of 
 Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of 
   this resolution the report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
  entitled ``Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned'' and 
documents in his possession on the reconstruction and security of post-
                               war Iraq.

    Resolved, That the President is requested to transmit to the House 
of Representatives not later than the 14th day beginning after the date 
of adoption of this resolution the report prepared for the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff entitled ``Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned'' 
and documents in his possession on the reconstruction and security of 
post-war Iraq.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.2


                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 on Form 10-Q for the period ended
May 31, 2003 of Arrow International, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the
"Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Frederick J. Hirt, the Vice President/Finance and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.


                        /s/ Frederick J. Hirt
                      ----------------------------------------------------------
                      Frederick J. Hirt
                      Chief Financial Officer and Vice President-Finance
                      (Principal Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer)

                      July 14, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.


                                       42
Exhibit 34.1

** **

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Management of Consumers Energy Company

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying “Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria,” that Consumers Energy Company complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Company acted as servicer of the Securitization Property as defined within the Securitization Property Servicing Agreement dated as of July 22, 2014 (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(1)(v), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform or the servicing activities are applicable to the Platform but are excluded from the scope of management’s assertion and are not reported on herein. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that Consumers Energy Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

Detroit, Michigan

March 9, 2017

 

----
#### Agustin Aguilera GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74132.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Murray D. Hilts, Esq., Law Offices of Murray Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John R. Cunningham, Esq., Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq.,

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Agustín Aguilera Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings and remand. We dismiss the petition for review.

We do not consider Gomez’s contentions regarding extreme hardship because he did not challenge the agency’s good moral character finding in his motion to reopen and that determination is dispositive.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying order dismissing Gomez’s appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying suspension of deportation because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      823,730
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    159,673
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         113,463
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        26,596
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  14,384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,137,846
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            190,367<F1>
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           633,875
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   17,928
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 295,676
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,137,846
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      168,993
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                 0
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     137,206
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     137,206
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         31,787
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,709
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  33,496
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        27,882
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,614
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        0
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          48,588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Old Dominion is organized and operated as a cooperative. Patronage capital
is the retained net margins of Old Dominion which have been allocated to its
members based on their respective power purchases in accordances with Old
Dominion's bylaws.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<table class="regular" id="BLStable_2024_2_23_7_32" style="width: 95%;"><caption><span class="tableTitle">Chart 2b. Seasonal adjustment for Employment Cost Index (ECI) wages and salaries and Current Employment Statistics (CES) average hourly earnings, private industry workers, June, 2014–23</span></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="vertical-align: middle; min-width: 80px;" rowspan="1" scope="col">Year</th>
<th scope="col">ECI seasonal adjustment</th>
<th scope="col">CES seasonal adjustment</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>2014</p>
</th>
<td>-0.09</td>
<td>0.16</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>2015</p>
</th>
<td>-0.09</td>
<td>0.85</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>2016</p>
</th>
<td>-0.08</td>
<td>0.83</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>2017</p>
</th>
<td>-0.07</td>
<td>0.88</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>2018</p>
</th>
<td>-0.08</td>
<td>0.93</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>2019</p>
</th>
<td>-0.09</td>
<td>0.18</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>2020</p>
</th>
<td>-0.11</td>
<td>0.93</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>2021</p>
</th>
<td>-0.14</td>
<td>0.86</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>2022</p>
</th>
<td>-0.17</td>
<td>0.85</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>2023</p>
</th>
<td>-0.16</td>
<td>0.81</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot id="BLStable_2024_2_23_7_32_footnotes" style="display: table-footer-group;">
<tr class="footnotes">
<td class="footnotes" colspan="3">
<p>Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p></p>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jonato SAENZ-RIVERA, also known as Jesus Ramirez Rivera, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40415

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 23, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for DefendanL-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jonato Saenz-Rivera (Saenz) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after deportation and after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. He argues that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on his prior Texas state conviction for burglary of a habitation. Saenz contends that the definition of “habitation” under Texas law is broader than the generic, contemporary meaning of “dwelling” as used in the enumerated offense of “burglary of a dwelling” in the Sentencing Guidelines. Although he acknowledges this court’s precedent to the contrary, he asserts that this precedent has been overruled by the Supreme Court’s decision in *James v. United States,*-U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 1599-1600, 167 L.Ed.2d 532 (2007). This argument is without merit as *James*did not involve an enumerated offense. *See United States v. Gomez-Guerra,*485 F.3d 301, 303 *&*n. 1 (5th Cir.2007). The district court did not err in determining that Saenz’s prior conviction was a crime of violence. *See United States v. Valdez-Maltos,*443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 265, 166 L.Ed.2d 205 (2006).

In light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Saenz challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by *591a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.” *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *petition for cert. filed*(Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOHN HARVEY TAYLOR, III, ) DOC #Y32333, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-980 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 29, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Frederick R. Hardt, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

OF TEXAS 

kilss C8therlne Lyne Barnhill 

County Attorney 

Bee county'~~ 

Bewille, Texas 

Dear &is61 Ba~'nhillr 

Your letter 

opinfon as to 

or unsouml 

, reque8ting an 

o h8s been Oajutlgad 

institution, 9.0 

ee b a llol t d.tote. 

opinion to the eiieot 

en oolN1otoIl or pIfuullty is 

nstitution'of this Btate,..antitled 

seofion 1, of the Conred to br you 8bsolutely prohibits insane persons rrom Toting.