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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3111 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3111

                 For the relief of Walter Enrique Lara.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2009

 Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 For the relief of Walter Enrique Lara.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR WALTER ENRIQUE LARA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Walter Enrique Lara shall 
be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of 
status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Walter Enrique Lara enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Walter Enrique Lara, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Walter 
Enrique Lara shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Louis Pardo, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Poseidis, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  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 quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in 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(s)  and I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  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 such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to
ensure that  material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including  its
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 conclusions about 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 the  registrant's  fiscal
quarter that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) All significant  deficiencies and material  weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal  control over financial  reporting which adversely  affect
the  registrant's  ability to record,  process,  summarize and report  financial
information; and
     (b) Any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  October 3, 2006
                                        /s/ Louis Pardo
                                       -------------------------------
                                       Louis Pardo
                                       Chief Executive Officer and President
#### Deirdre Gallagher et al., Appellants, v Michael Kazmierczuk et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 212]

—In an action to recover on a promissory note, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated May 29, 1997, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for entry of an appropriate judgment.

In this action to recover on a promissory note, the plaintiffs established a prima facie case by submitting proof of the note and of the defendants’ default (see, *Bank of N. Y. v Sterlington Common*Assocs., 235 AD2d 448; *Falco v Thorne,*225 AD2d 582; *Silber v Muschel,*190 AD2d 727; *Mlcoch v Smith,*173 AD2d 443). It was then incumbent on the defendants to come forward with proof of evidentiary facts showing the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense (see, *Colonial Commercial Corp. v Breskel Assocs.,*238 AD2d 539; *Gateway State Bank v Shangri-La Private Club for Women,*113 AD2d 791, *affd*67 NY2d 627; *Silber v Muschel, supra).*Here, the defendants’ vague suggestion that they may have been coerced was unaccompanied by any factual details as to how the plaintiffs allegedly forced them to borrow $77,000 at 3%. interest by means of “a wrongful threat precluding the exercise of [the defendants’] free will” *(Austin Instrument v Loral Corp.,*29 NY2d 124, 130; *Sontag v Sontag,*114 AD2d 892).

Finally, summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 is appropriate where, as here, the full extent of the debtor’s obligation can be gleaned from the face of the note alone *(see, e.g., Gregorio v Gregorio,*234 AD2d 512; *Joswick v Rossi,*190 AD2d 656). Significantly, the defendants do not indicate what obligation, not apparent from the face of the note, might have been required of them by the note’s boilerplate references to the mortgage. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2011

_____________________________
M ICHAEL S UMNER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for B ay County

. Brantley S. Clark
, Jr., Judge

. June 28, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W ETHERELL , R OWE , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.33 1

.

_____________________________2 Michael Sumner, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### BAO RONG XU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70868.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 21, 2011.

Bao Rong Xu, Alhambra, CA, pro se.

Regina Byrd, Esquire, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Susan Houser, Justin Robert Markel, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Bao Rong Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of *656discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo due process claims. *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Xu’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 90 days after the issuance of the BIA’s final order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Xu failed to establish either changed circumstances in China, *see He v. Gonzales,*501 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir.2007) (change in personal circumstances does not establish changed circumstances in the country of origin-excusing untimely motion to reopen), or that he acted with the due diligence required to warrant equitable tolling of the time limitation, *see Itumbarria,*321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud, or error, and exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Xu’s contention that his former attorney’s performance caused him prejudice.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWABS, INC.
                 CWABS ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES TRUST 2006-2
                   ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-2


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.17 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
[No. 42365-1-II.

Division Two.

October 16, 2012.]

#### Jung Jin et al., *Respondents,*v. KYB Farms, Inc., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 11-2-07514-7, Beverly G. Grant, J., entered June 24, 2011. *Affirmed in part, reversed in part,*and *remanded with instructions*by unpublished opinion per

Worswick, C.J.,

concurred in by Hunt and Van Deren, JJ.
Exhibit
31.1




CERTIFICATION




I, James
Whang, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to
be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of
STRATS(SM) Trust
For Procter & Gamble Securities, Series 2006-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic
reports”);




2.           Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;




4.           Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report
under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement; and




5.           All
of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material
instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this
report on Form 10-K.




In giving
the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me
by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of New York Mellon, as
Trustee.




Dated:
      March 30, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/ James
      WhangJames
      WhangDirector(senior
      officer of depositor in charge of securitization)
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of
2002

(18 U.S.C. § 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Basin Water, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2007 (the Report), I, W. Christopher Chisholm, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that:



| | 1) | to my knowledge, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                            
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: February 10, 2009 |  |  |  | BY: |  | /s/ W. CHRISTOPHER CHISHOLM
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | W. Christopher Chisholm    
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer    

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
18.U.S.C.1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The
undersigned, Brian B. Dow, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies:



| | (i) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                      
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 18, 2009 |  | /s/    Brian B. Dow                                  
|                     |  | Brian B. Dow                                         
|                     |  | Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Agricultural Research Service

# AGENCY:

Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of intent.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to the CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE COMMISSION of FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, an exclusive license to the variety of table grape described in U.S. Plant Patent Application Serial No. 15/731,420, “GRAPEVINE NAMED `SOLBRIO,' ” filed on JUNE 6, 2017.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2017.

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Government's patent rights in THIS PLANT VARIETY are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Mojdeh Bahar,

Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2017-22490 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 8 -00 259 -CR

The St at e of Te xa s, App e lla nt

v. John Francis Curr an III, Ap pellee

FR OM T HE C OU N T Y C OU R T A T L A W N O. 1 OF T R A V IS C OU N T Y NO. C-1- CR-05 -71 3701 , HO NORAB LE J. DAVID P HI LLIP S , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N By complaint filed in the City of Austin municipal co u rt , the State cha rg ed J ohn Fr ancis Curra

n I I Iwith violating a c ity ordi n an ce that bans solicitation betwee n pedestria ns
and oc c up ants of

mot or ve hic le s. Curr an f

ile d a mot ion to q ua shthe c omp la int

on g ro un ds that, amongothers, the or dinance violated the F irst Amendment to the U.S. Constit ution; Ar t icle 1, Secti on 8 of the Te x as Constitut ion; and the Equal Protec tion and Due Proc ess Clauses of the Four teen Ame ndment. The muni cipal court g rante d the m otion to quash and dismiss ed the c ause, holding that “ the ordinanc e a t i s s u e is overly broad a nd not narrow ly

tailored a

nd is theref

ore unconstitutional.” The State appe aled the judg ment to the county co u rt -a t -l aw, which issued an opinion and judg ment aff irming the mun i ci p al co u rt ’s judg ment. The State a ppeale d the
c ounty c ourt -at- law’ s ju dg me nt t o th is C ourt .2 After this Court set the appea l f or ora l argument, Curran f iled an unopposed motion for “leave to w ithdraw appellee ’s motion to quash filed below and to dismiss this appeal.” Curr an repr esents that “the parties have re ache d an agree ment in order to resolve the dispute nowon appea l.” He “ reque sts leave to author ize him t o withdraw his motion to quash filed in the municipal court whic h ultimately

led to this a

ppeal and then reque sts this Court dismi ss this appeal as moot.” We gr ant Curra

n’s motion for “lea

ve to withdrawappellee ’s motion t o quash filed below” a nd abate this appeal to per mit proce eding s below to eff ectuate the par

ties’ agree ment. The parties sha ll advise the Court when the motion to quash i s withdrawn. I f t he mot ion to quash i s not wi thd ra wn by F e br ua ry 9, 20 09 , th e pa

rt ie s sh a ll f

ile a status re po rt wi th this Co ur t. We ov e rr

ule Curran’ s motion t o dismiss at this tim e.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and Pember

ton Abated Filed: De cembe r 9, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh