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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3295 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3295

  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal the provisions 
 prohibiting persons convicted of drug offenses from receiving student 
                         financial assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2009

 Mr. Frank of Massachusetts (for himself, Ms. Edwards of Maryland, Mr. 
  Paul, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. 
Conyers, Mr. Berman, Ms. Waters, Mr. Serrano, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Waxman, 
 Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Stark, Mr. Rush, Mr. Honda, Mr. Boucher, Ms. Eshoo, 
   Mr. Massa, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. 
 Abercrombie, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Clarke, Ms. 
 Norton, Mr. Filner, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Hirono, Ms. 
Slaughter, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, and Ms. Lee 
of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to repeal the provisions 
 prohibiting persons convicted of drug offenses from receiving student 
                         financial assistance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Removing Impediments to Students 
Education Act of 2009'' or the ``RISE Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS PROHIBITING PERSONS CONVICTED OF DRUG 
              OFFENSES FROM RECEIVING STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Repeal.--Subsection (r) of section 484 of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(r)) is repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 485(k) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
1092(k)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(k) Notice to Students Concerning Penalties for Drug 
Violations.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of the 
RISE Act of 2009, an institution of higher education shall provide to 
each student who lost eligibility for any grant, loan, or work-study 
assistance under this title as a result of the penalties listed under 
484(r)(1) as in effect before the date of enactment of such Act, and 
who has not regained eligibility for such assistance before such date 
of enactment, a separate, clear, and conspicuous written notice that 
notifies the student of the repeal of section 484(r) and advises the 
student that the student has regained eligibility for such assistance 
as of such date of enactment.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Joginder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-75105.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 16, 2008.

Filed May 9, 2008.

Hardeep S. Rai, Phuong N. Le, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Lance L. Jolley, Terri Jane Seadron, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*739Before: SCHROEDER, NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Joginder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order upholding an Immigration Judge’s determination that no extraordinary or changed circumstances excused his failure to file his asylum application within a year, and that he was not entitled to withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We dismiss his petition in part, grant his petition in part, and remand.

The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not recount them. Joginder Singh did not produce evidence of extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse his failure to file an asylum application within one year; therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review his asylum claim and dismiss that portion of his petition. 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.4(a)(4) and 208.4(a)(5). The government requested a remand for the BIA and the IJ to clarify ambiguous rulings by the BIA and the IJ. Based on this record, we cannot adequately discern the precise theory upon which the IJ and the BIA denied Joginder Singh’s claims for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT. Therefore, we grant the petition in part and remand for the BIA to either remand the matter to the IJ to conduct a “full and fair” inquiry into Singh’s credibility and issue a legally sufficient credibility determination, or accept Singh’s testimony as true and determine whether he has met his burden of proof for withholding of removal or relief under the CAT. *See Singh v. Gonzales,*491 F.3d 1019, 1027 (9th Cir. 2007).

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, GRANTED IN PART AND REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Order entered March 23, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01250-CR

LONNIE BERNARD JONES JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-70555-W

ORDER

The reporter’s record was due January 31, 2020. By postcard dated February 

4, 2020, we notified official court reporter Darline King that the reporter’s record 

was overdue and directed her to file (1) the reporter’s record, (2) written 

verification that no hearings were recorded, or (3) written verification that 

appellant has not requested the reporter’s record by March 5, 2020. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 35.3(b) (official reporter responsible for ensuring timely filed reporter’s 
record). To date, the reporter’s record has not been filed and we have had no 

communication from Ms. King.

We ORDER court reporter Darline King file the complete reporter’s record 

in this appeal by April 20, 2020. We caution Ms. King that the failure to file the 

reporter’s record by that date may result in the Court taking whatever action it 

deems appropriate to ensure that this appeal proceeds in a more timely fashion, 

which may include ordering that she not sit as a court reporter until the record in 

this appeal is filed.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Tracy 

Holmes, Presiding Judge, 363rd Judicial District Court; Darline King, court 

reporter, 363rd Judicial District Court; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3539 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 427 Harrison Avenue in Harrison, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Patricia D. McGinty-Juhl Post Office Building’’. 

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


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3539 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. PATRICIA D. MCGINTY-JUHL POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 427 Harrison Avenue in Har5 rison, New Jersey, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Patricia D. McGinty-Juhl Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Patricia D. McGinty11 Juhl Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.A

                            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
ending June 30, 2002, of East Coast Power, L.L.C. (the "Company") as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Clark C. Smith, President (Principal Executive Officer), certify (i) that the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                              /s/ Clark C. Smith
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Clark C. Smith
                                              President
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)

                                              August 14, 2002
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hedilberto Mondragon GUZMAN, also known as Hedilberto Guzman, also known as Hedilberto Mondragon-Guzman, also known as Hedilberto T. Guzman, also known as Albert Guzman, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20448

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 22, 2011.

James Lee Turner, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Timothy William Crooks, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Pub-lie Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Hedilberto Mondragon Guzman (Guzman) pleaded guilty to one.count of unlawful reentry following deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction and was sentenced to 46 months in prison. He now appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by enhancing his offense level by 16 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 based on a prior Texas conviction for attempted burglary of a habitation. We review this question de novo. *See United States v. Bonilla,*524 F.3d 647, 651 (5th Cir.2008).

The judgment from Guzman’s prior state conviction shows that on August 30, 2007, he pleaded guilty to and was convicted of attempted burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft. He also admitted at rearraignment that the Government’s proffered factual basis — which provided that he was convicted on August 30, 2007, of attempted burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft — was true. That language falls squarely within § 30.02(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code, which we have held meets the definition of burglary of a dwelling, an enumerated crime of violence under § 2L1.2. *See United States v. Constante,*544 F.3d 584, 585 (5th Cir.2008) (Armed Career Criminal Act case); *United States v. Garcia-Mendez,*420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir.2005). An *408attempt to commit an enhancing offense is counted. § 2L1.2, comment, (n.5).

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.
---

Exhibit 8

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Augusta Resource
Corporation (the Company) on Form 40-F/A (amendment no. 1) for the period
ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Gil Clausen, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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
this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|May 16, 2011 | /s/
  Gil Clausen      
|------------ | -----------------------
|             |                        
|             | Gil Clausen            
|             | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Augusta Resource Corporation and will be retained by
Augusta Resource Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
LUIS G. BELTRAN , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0718 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR1997

- 001423 The Honorable Ronda R. Fisk , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Luis G. Beltran, Buckeye Petitioner Pro Per

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr., Judge Jon W. Thompson and Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court. FILED 3-14-2019STATE v. BELTRAN Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Luis G. Beltran seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Ru le of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's 12 th petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court wi ll not disturb a superior court' s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierr ez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner' s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of e stablishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court's order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discre tion. ¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          13,437
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,562
<INVENTORY>                                     14,584
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,950
<PP&E>                                          26,791
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 469,456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,220
<BONDS>                                        140,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           21,644
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,854
<OTHER-SE>                                     (20,335)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   469,456
<SALES>                                        120,164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           74,545
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  107,206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    54
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   127
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,571
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,005
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,566
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (208)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,358
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0




</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"$430,000 In Penalty Payments Collected","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RImFxlfuQT\"><a href=\"\/430000-in-penalty-payments-collected\/\">$430,000 In Penalty Payments Collected<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/430000-in-penalty-payments-collected\/embed\/#?secret=RImFxlfuQT\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“$430,000 In Penalty Payments Collected” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"RImFxlfuQT\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
**EXHIBIT
      31.1**




Certifications





I,
      Liu,
      Sheng Li, President, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dispatch Auto Parts,
      Inc..





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the 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 annual report;





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





4.
      Our
      other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining
      disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)
      and 15d-(e)) for us 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 us, including its consolidates 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 our 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 our internal control over financial reporting
      that
      occurred during our  most recent fiscal period that has materially
      affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control
      over financial reporting; and





5.
      Our
      other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
      evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of our board of directors
      (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a)
      all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
      could adversely affect our ability to record, process, summarize and report
      financial data and have identified for our auditors any material weaknesses
      in
      internal controls (all of which do not apply); and





b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in our internal controls, (all of which do not apply);
      and








Date:
      September 27, 2007











/s/
      Liu, Sheng Li


Liu,
      Sheng Li