alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"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":"Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Dye Ocean Transportation Intermediary Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TTQxd0GHLz\"><a href=\"\/statement-of-commissioner-rebecca-dye-ocean-transportation-intermediary-advanced-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-2\/\">Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Dye Ocean Transportation Intermediary Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/statement-of-commissioner-rebecca-dye-ocean-transportation-intermediary-advanced-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-2\/embed\/#?secret=TTQxd0GHLz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Dye Ocean Transportation Intermediary Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"TTQxd0GHLz\" 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"}
February 28, 2007

Ms. Kristen Driscoll
Citibank, N.A.
388 Greenwich Street 14th Floor
New York, NY 10013

RE: Officer's Certificate - Annual Statement as to Compliance

PHH Mortgage Capital LLC, Series:  PHHMC 2006-1

Dear Ms. Driscoll:

The undersigned officer certifies the following for PHH Mortgage Corporation
(the "Master Servicer") for the 2006 calendar year.

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2006, among PHH Mortgage Capital LLC, PHH
Mortgage Corporation and Citibank, N.A. (the "Pooling and Servicing
Agreement") has been made under my supervision.

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
in all material respects throughout such year, except as noted in (iii) below.

(iii) During the months of July, August, and September, 2006 the Master
Servicer's minimum coverage requirement on its fidelity bond exceeded its $160
million bond by amounts ranging up to approximately $1.3 million.  Effective
September 27, 2006, the Master Servicer's fidelity bond was increased to $170
million.


Certified by:

/s/  Marc J. Hinkle
--------------------------------
Officer - Marc J. Hinkle
Vice President - Loan Servicing
PHH Mortgage Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         338,088
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,640,728
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (28,155)
<INVENTORY>                                    118,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,208,192
<PP&E>                                         3,656,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,233,966)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,831,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,906,432
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       12,430,811
<OTHER-SE>                                     (11,617,223)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,831,414
<SALES>                                        8,713,335
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,713,335
<CGS>                                          6,793,180
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,793,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,281,253
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             13,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (374,704)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (78,119)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (296,585)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (296,585)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.07)



</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2982 

To amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize cybersecurity operations 

and missions to protect critical infrastructure by members of the National 

Guard in connection with training or other duty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2021 

Mr. KIM of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Ms. 

KUSTER, Mr. KELLY of Mississippi, and Mr. RYAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize cybersecurity operations and missions to protect critical infrastructure by members of the National Guard in connection with training or other duty. 

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 ‘‘National Guard Cyber5 security Support Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2982 IH

1 SEC. 2. CYBERSECURITY OPERATIONS AND MISSIONS TO 

2 PROTECT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE BY 

3 MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD IN CON4 NECTION WITH TRAINING OR OTHER DUTY. 

5 Section 502(f)(1) of title 32, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding after the flush matter at the end the 

7 following new sentence: ‘‘Such training or other duty may 

8 include cybersecurity operations or missions undertaken 

9 by the member’s unit at the request of the Governor of 

10 the State concerned to protect critical infrastructure (as 

11 that term is defined in the Critical Infrastructures Protec12 tion Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 5195c)).’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 of BF Acquisition Group III,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William Colucci, President 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: June 16, 2004

                                 /s/ William Colucci
                                 ------------------------------
                                 William Colucci, President
                                 BF Acquisition Group III, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6257

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LLOYD LENWOOD WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CR-95-84, CA-98-779-7)

Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lloyd Lenwood Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lloyd Lenwood Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Walker, Nos. CR-95-84;

CA-98-779-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2000). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deon MANNING, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50020

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard D. Esper, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Deon Manning appeals following his guilty plea conviction. He contends that he did not knowing!y and freely waive his right to appeal the constitutional reasonableness of his sentence, and, as a result, he is entitled to argue on appeal that the district court improperly sentenced him as a career offender and erroneously increased his base offense level based on post-arrest statements. He also posits that counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

As the government contends, Manning’s arguments regarding his sentence are barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision in his plea agreement, which was knowing, voluntary, and enforceable. *See United States v. Robinson,*187 F.3d 516, 517 (5th Cir.1999); *United States v. Portillo,*18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir.1994); Fed. R.CrimP. ll(b)(l)(N). The record is insufficiently developed to address Manning’s ineffective-assistance claims. *See United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006). Thus, the judgment is 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.
{"id":1421,"date":"2013-01-15T12:18:14","date_gmt":"2013-01-15T16:18:14","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=1421"},"modified":"2018-08-17T12:24:05","modified_gmt":"2018-08-17T16:24:05","slug":"commissioner-mario-corderos-remarks-at-the-transportation-research-board-92nd-annual-meeting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/commissioner-mario-corderos-remarks-at-the-transportation-research-board-92nd-annual-meeting\/","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Mario Cordero’s Remarks at the Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>January 15, 2013<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/assets\/1\/News\/CorderoTRBRemarks-1152013.pdf\">Click here to download document<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>January 15, 2013 Click here to download document<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[28],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1421"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1421"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1421\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1422,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1421\/revisions\/1422"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1421"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1421"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1421"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio AMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-7667.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 16, 2008.

Decided: May 23, 2008.

Antonio Amos, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Agli Gallagher, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Amos seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Amos has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Opinion issued May 5, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00809-CV

———————————

KENNARD LAW, P.C., Appellant

V.

THE DOCUMENT GROUP, INC. D/B/A ENCASE LEGAL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2019-10630

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Kennard Law, P.C., has neither established indigence for 

purposes of appellate costs nor paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for 

preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145; TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(a).

After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant has not 
2

responded to this Court’s notice and a clerk’s record has not been filed. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Lloyd, and Hightower.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31086]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No.1864-005]


Upper Peninsula Power Company; Notice of Availability of Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement

December 11, 2001.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC or Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects staff has reviewed the applications for new license 
for the Bond Falls Project, and has prepared a draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. In the draft EIS, the 
Commission's staff has analyzed the potential environmental impacts of 
the existing projects and has recommended that approval of the 
projects, with appropriate environmental protection measures, would be 
in the public interest.
    Copies of the draft EIS are available for review in the Public 
Reference Branch, Room 2-A, of the Commission's offices at 888 First 
Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    Any comments should be filed within 60 days from the date of this 
notice and should be addressed to Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Acting 
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20246. Please affix ``Bond Falls Project No. 1864-005,'' 
as appropriate, to all comments. For further information, please 
contact Patrick Murphy at (202) 219-2659.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31086 Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### YAN HE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-1297.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2013.

Decided: Dec. 4, 2013.

Thomas V. Massucci, Law Office of Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New *327York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Erica B. Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jesse Lloyd Busen, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Yan He, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying her requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the evidence relevant to country conditions in China, the transcript of He’s merits hearing, and He’s supporting affidavit and exhibits. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re: He*(B.I.A. Feb. 7, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
#### Mrs. Minnie O. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America and Mrs. Betty Lee Taylor, Appellees.

No. 16535.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 17, 1957.

Vincent P. McCauley, Columbus, Ga., for appellant.

Joseph H. Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., James H. Fort, Columbus, Ga., for appellees.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appealing from a judgment entered against her in a suit on a National Service Life Insurance policy, plaintiff, the widow of the veteran, is here insisting that the district judge erred in denying her claim as beneficiary, and awarding the insurance to the mother of the veteran, the beneficiary designated in the policy, and the judgment may not stand.

We do not think so. On this record, the question presented for decision was a factual one, and, in an unreported opinion correctly summing up the evidence and resolving the conflicts in it in favor of the mother, the district judge gave, we think, sound reason for his findings and conclusions. Certainly we cannot say his findings were clearly erroneous, nor can we say that, based upon his findings, his conclusions were.

No purpose would be served by a canvass of the authorities1 appellant and appellee cite. They unite in declaring that in cases of this kind, where there is a dispute between the beneficiary designated in the policy and one claiming that there has been a change of beneficiary, when the evidence is in conflict, it is for the district judge to resolve the conflicts, and when, as here, he has done so, his decision, unless shown to be clearly erroneous, must stand.

The judgment was right. It is affirmed.

1

. Some of these are: Mitchell v. United States, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 758; Collins v. United States, 10 Cir., 161 F.2d 64; Bradley v. United States, 10 Cir., 143 F.2d 573; Butler v. Butler, 5 Cir., 177 F.2d 471; Shapiro v. United States, 2 Cir., 166 F.2d 240; Senato v. United States, 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 493; Gann v. Meek, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 857; McKewen v. McKewen, 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 761, certiorari denied 334 U.S. 860, 68 S.Ct. 1530, 92 L.Ed. 1780; Coleman v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 145, 176 F.2d 469; Watson v. United States, 5 Cir., 185 F.2d 292; Hester v. Hester, 5 Cir., 171 F.2d 477; Kell v. United States, D.C., 104 F.Supp. 699, affirmed 5 Cir., 202 F.2d 143.