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

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         September 25, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 20, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 360 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-206, CP2017-314.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-20416 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2929 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2929

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide an exception to 
that Act for actions carried out against grizzly bears in self-defense, 
     defense of others, or a reasonable belief of imminent danger.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 14, 2011

  Mr. Labrador (for himself and Mr. Simpson) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide an exception to 
that Act for actions carried out against grizzly bears in self-defense, 
     defense of others, or a reasonable belief of imminent danger.

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

SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 FOR SELF-
              DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF OTHERS, OR REASONABLE BELIEF OF 
              IMMINENT DANGER REGARDING GRIZZLY BEARS.

    Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(k) Self-Defense, Defense of Others, or Reasonable Belief of 
Imminent Danger Regarding Grizzly Bears.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law (including regulations), the provisions of this Act 
shall not apply with respect to the taking of any grizzly bear by an 
individual who demonstrates to the Secretary by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the individual carried out the taking as a result of--
            ``(1) self-defense;
            ``(2) defense of another individual; or
            ``(3) a reasonable belief of imminent danger posed by the 
        grizzly bear to any individual.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,774
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,265
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (77)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         109,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                  68,711
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         23,588
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,376
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,129
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,016
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    27
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,950
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,370
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,370
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,370
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1207

DAGME ALEMAYEHU,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A95-227-648)

Submitted: September 30, 2005 Decided: November 1, 2005

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gretchen C. F.

Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E.

Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dagme Alemayehu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board affirming in part the

immigration judge’s order denying his requests for asylum and

withholding of removal. 

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for asylum relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he

presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could

fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the

evidence of record and conclude that Alemayehu fails to show that

the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot

grant the relief that he seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of

Alemayehu’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the

burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for

asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an

applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible

for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”

Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because

Alemayehu fails to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot

meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
[949 NYS2d 565]

#### RBD Realty Consultants, Inc., Respondent, v Ubaldo A. Espinal, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 27, 2012

*40APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Ubaldo A. Espinal,*appellant pro se. *Kavulich & Associates, EC.,*New Rochelle *(Cheryl-Renee Johnson*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgment entered on or about July 26, 2010, reversed, without costs, and new trial ordered.

The slender (eight-page) record developed at the trial of this plenary action to recover rent arrears allegedly owed by defendant tenant does not permit meaningful appellate review of the issues presented, including the date defendant surrendered possession of the residential apartment and whether any rent impairing conditions existed in the apartment during defendant’s occupancy. With respect to the former, the brief testimony offered by plaintiff’s property manager is capable of an interpretation that defendant vacated the premises as early as September 2005, evidence at odds with the allegations set forth in the complaint and the verdict reached below. The trial court’s cryptic decision — reflecting nothing more than the court’s view that “plaintiff has established its prima facie case” — provides little insight into the court’s reasoning in connection with this troubling aspect of the evidence or its resolution of what should have been a straightforward case.

Given the unsatisfactory state of the record, we are constrained to remand the matter for a new trial and issuance of a decision in conformity with the specificity requirements of CPLR 4213 (b). In so doing, we remind the trial bench that its statutory obligation to articulate the reasoning underlying a ruling stems not from trifling or technical concerns, but serves to assure the parties that the case was fully considered in accordance with the facts and law, facilitate informed appellate review and, perhaps most importantly, promote the public’s perception “that judicial decisionmaking is reasoned rather than arbitrary” *(Nadle v L.O. Realty Corp.,*286 AD2d 130, 131 [2001]).

Hunter, Jr., J.P., Shulman and Torres, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 19, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00889

- CR

Cameron Antoine ROBY

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR6809

The Honorable Velia J. Meza , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED.

Appellant ’ s Brief i s due December 4, 20 2 0.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m y hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of October, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
#### Gardner *v.*Crossman and another.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

August *4,*1881.)

PractioEt-Amendsievt — Answer.

Where no sufficient reason is shown for amending an answerwhicha general replication treats as a denial of the existence of the agreement set up in the complaint, the motion to amend will be denied.

*Richards & Heald,*for plaintiff.

*Scudder & Carter, for*defendants.

Blatchford, C. J.

On more careful consideration I am of opinion, that my ruling on the objection to cross-question *895*was yrrong, and that the objection ought to be overruled. As both parties acquiesced in going on in this court under the complaint and answer in the state court, without the filing of a new bill in equity in this court, and as the plaintiff treated the answer of the defendant as a general denial of the agreement set up in the complaint, by proceeding to prove such agreement as set up, it is proper that it should be so treated by this court. In addition to this I think it is a fair construction of the answer that it denies the existence of the agreement set up in the complaint. The putting in of a general replication to *852it so treats it. But I think the defendants must be held to such answer, and that, while they are entitled to all that legitimately'flows from it, they are not entitled now to amend it. No sufficient reason is shown for allowing it to be amended, and the motion to amend it must be denied, and an order be entered to carry into effect the foregoing decision.,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet and Consolidated Statements of Operations,
Stockholders' Deficit and Cash Flows of Ultra Shield Products International,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          29,321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,298
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,000
<INVENTORY>                                    256,308
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               374,927
<PP&E>                                         472,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                 268,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 792,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,724,673
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,383,608
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,000,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   792,408
<SALES>                                        369,333
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               369,333
<CGS>                                          230,657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,955,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                86,171
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,968
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,638,641)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,640,241)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,640,241)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)
        

</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2950 

To amend the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 with respect to small 

business access to capital, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 

Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana (for himself, Mr. BOREN, Mr. ALTMIRE, Mr. BACA, 

Mr. BARROW, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. ROSS

of Arkansas, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SHULER, 

and Mr. MICHAUD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 with respect 

to small business access to capital, 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 ‘‘Small Business Admin5 istration 504 Loan Refinancing Extension Act of 2011’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2950 IH

1 SEC. 2. LOW-INTEREST REFINANCING UNDER THE LOCAL 

2 DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM. 

3 Section 1122(b) of the Small Business Jobs Act of 

4 2010 is amended by striking ‘‘Effective 2 years after’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘On the date that is 3 years after’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40079 Summary Calendar

__________________ JUAN GARCIA MARTINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-B-91-194
- - - - - - - - - - February 9, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Garcia Martinez moves this Court for a certificate of probable cause (CPC). Martinez argues that he should have been appointed counsel for the evidentiary hearing conducted by the district court to determine whether his trial counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal. Appointment of counsel is mandatory if a district court determines that an evidentiary hearing is required and a petitioner qualifies for appointment under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.No. 95-40079 -2- Lamb v. Estelle , 667 F.2d 492, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1982). As the district court had already adjudged him a pauper, Martinez was qualified under § 3006A(g). Therefore, the district court should have appointed counsel for Martinez. See Bell v. Watkins , 692 F.2d 999, 1014 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied , 464 U.S. 843 (1983). Martinez's motion for CPC is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is VACATED and the case REMANDED for the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing with Martinez represented by counsel.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 7, 2015

Order 

Clerk

July 7, 2015

149536(67)

DAVID ABBO, COLORADO TOYZ,

INC., and WIRELESS PHONES, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

SC: 149536

v COA: 304185

Oakland CC: 2007-082804-CK

WIRELESS TOYZ FRANCHISE, LLC,

JOE BARBAT, RICHARD SIMTOB,

JSB ENTERPRIZES, INC., and JACK

BARBAT,

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellants to extend the 

time for filing their supplemental brief to August 7, 2015 is GRANTED. The time for 

filing the supplemental brief of plaintiffs-appellees is similarly extended to August 7, 

2015.
#### The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., petitioners, v. CHUBB INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 10-244.

Nov. 29, 2010.

Motion of Brady C. Williamson for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae*granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
294 INDEPENDENT AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Pay

Plan

Type 

of

Appt.

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION - Continued

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT 

CONTRACTING & MINORITY 

ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT

Washington, DC Associate Deputy Administrator Vacant

for Government Contracting & 

Minority Enterprise 

Development

ES ... ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Associate Administrator for Career Incumbent

Hubzone Empowerment 

Contracting

ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy to the Associate Deputy Career Incumbent

Administrator for Government 

Contracting & Minority 

Enterprise Development

ES CA ...... ...... ......

Office of Government Contracting

 Do........... Associate Administrator for Career Incumbent

Government Contracting

ES CA ...... ...... ......

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Pay

Plan

Type 

of

Appt.

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Washington, DC Director, National Portrait Vacant 

Gallery

OT XS ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Director, Smithsonian Tropical Ira Rubinoff

Research Institute

OT XS ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Director, Smithsonian Irwin I. Shapiro

Astrophysical Observatory

EX XS V ...... ......

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Pay

Plan

Type 

of

Appt.

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OF THE 

COMMISSIONER

Washington, DC Commissioner Kenneth S. Apfel EX PAS I ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Commissioner of Social William A. Halter

Security

EX PAS II ...... ......

 Do........... Chief of Staff Brian D. Coyne ES NA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Confidential Assistant Robert Nickerson GS SC 14 ...... ......

 Do........... Special Assistant Juan Estuardo Lopez GS SC 12 ...... ......

 Do........... Special Counselor to the Eduard Lopez

Commissioner

ES NA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Senior Advisor to the Cassandra F. Wilkins

Commissioner

ES NA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Counselor Vacant ES ... ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Senior Advisor to the Vacant

Commissioner

ES ... ...... ...... ......
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2907 

To improve airport screening and security. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To improve airport screening and security. 

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 ‘‘Guaranteeing Airport 

5 Physical Screening Standards Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SECURED AREAS OF AIRPORTS. 

7 (a) IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPROVED AIRPORT PE8 RIMETER ACCESS SECURITY.—Not later than 1 year after 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Sec10 retary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Ad11 ministration) shall issue regulations, directives, or other 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2907 IH

1 appropriate measures to implement the requirements of 

2 section 44903(h)(4) of title 49, United States Code. 

3 (b) AIRPORT SECURITY PLANS.—The Assistant Sec4 retary shall set a schedule for requiring airports to update 

5 their airport security plans to comply with the require6 ments of section 44903(h)(4) not later than 3 years after 

7 the issuance of the regulations, directives, or other meas8 ures required under subsection (a). 

9 SEC. 3. HIRING OF SCREENERS. 

10 (a) NUMBER OF SCREENERS.—Notwithstanding any 

11 other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security 

12 may hire the number of passenger and baggage screeners 

13 that the Secretary determines necessary to ensure aviation 

14 security. 

15 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

16 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 

17 necessary to carry out this section. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS