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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3574 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the rules for 

postponing certain deadlines by reason of disaster. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 28, 2021 

Ms. CHU (for herself and Mr. KATKO) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the rules for postponing certain deadlines by reason of 

disaster. 

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 ‘‘Filing Relief for Nat5 ural Disasters Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF RULES FOR POSTPONING CER7 TAIN DEADLINES BY REASON OF DISASTER. 

8 (a) AUTHORITY TO POSTPONE FEDERAL TAX DEAD9 LINES BY REASON OF STATE-DECLARED DISASTERS.— 

10 Section 7508A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3574 IH

1 amended by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as sub2 sections (d) and (e), respectively, and by inserting after 

3 subsection (b) the following new subsection: 

4 ‘‘(c) SPECIAL RULE FOR STATE-DECLARED DISAS5 TERS.— 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon the written request 

7 of the Governor of a State (or the Mayor, in the 

8 case of the District of Columbia) in which an emer9 gency or disaster has been declared under State law, 

10 subsection (a) shall apply to such State-declared 

11 emergency or disaster in the same manner as such 

12 subsections apply to federally declared disasters. 

13 ‘‘(2) STATE.—For purposes of this section, the 

14 term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, the 

15 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, 

16 Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 

17 the Northern Mariana Islands.’’. 

18 (b) MANDATORY EXTENSIONS EXTENDED TO 120 

19 DAYS.—Section 7508A(e) of such Code, as redesignated 

20 by subsection (a), is amended— 

21 (1) by striking ‘‘60 days’’ in paragraph (1)(B) 

22 thereof and inserting ‘‘120 days’’, and 

23 (2) by striking ‘‘60-DAY’’ in the heading and in24 serting ‘‘120-DAY’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3574 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to declarations made after the date 

3 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00303-CR

CHRISTOPHER RYAN WIGLEY APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

On June 21, 2012, as part of a plea bargain agreement, Appellant 

Christopher Ryan Wigley pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm and the 

trial court sentenced him to five years’ confinement. On the same day, the trial 

court certified that this is a plea bargain case and that Appellant has no right of

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

appeal. Despite the trial court’s certification, Appellant filed a pro se notice of 

appeal on July 10, 2012.

On July 10, 2012, we notified Appellant and Appellant’s appointed counsel 

that the certification indicating that Appellant had no right to appeal had been 

filed in this court, and that this appeal could be dismissed unless Appellant or any 

party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal on or before July 20, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 

44.3. On July 16, 2012, Appellant filed a pro se response citing rule 25.2(a)(2)(a)

as providing grounds to continue his appeal.

Rule 25.2(a)(2) limits the right of appeal in a plea-bargain case to matters 

that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or to cases in 

which the appellant obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. 

P. 25.2(a)(2). The record shows that there are no written motions filed and ruled 

on before trial and that Appellant did not obtain the trial court’s permission to 

appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 

43.2(f).

PER CURIAM 

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 9, 2012
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor obo Alvaro Saldivar v. Grimes Rock, Inc.              

#   Secretary of Labor obo Alvaro Saldivar v. Grimes Rock, Inc.

Grimes Rock WEST 2021-0178 Meeting notice 2-7-23.pdf

Grimes Rock WEST 2021-0178 Meeting notice 2-7-23.htm

commission-open-meetingsecretary-labor-behalf-saldivar-v-grimes-rock-incwest-2021-0178-dm02-07-2023.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
California First National Bancorp and
Subsidiaries





EXHIBIT
32








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350)








The
undersigned, Patrick E. Paddon, Chief Executive Officer of California First
National Bancorp (the “Company”), and S. Leslie Jewett, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
that:





(i)           the
annual report on Form 10-K 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.








/s/ Patrick E.
      PaddonPatrick E.
      PaddonChief Executive
      Officer







/s/ S. Leslie
      JewettS. Leslie
      JewettChief Financial
      Officer






Dated: September 23, 2008







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




The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8060
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REYNALDO S. LUNA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00359-MJG-1; 1:06-cv-02912-MJG) Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 5, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reynaldo S. Luna, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa M. Griffin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Reynaldo S. Luna seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive. 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Luna has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss 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
_______________________________________ __ Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 21, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128688 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 128688 COA: 256377 Barry CC: 04-000104-FH CORY JO SCHUT, 56-B DC: 04-0149-FY Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 17, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of A ppeals and REMAND this case to the 56-B

District Court for reconsidera tion of whether to bind ov er defendant on the charge of operating a motor vehicle with a revoked li cense causing death, in light of this Court's

decision in People v Schaefer , 473 Mich 418 (2005).

We do not retain jurisdiction.

d0914 I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, 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.

September 21, 2005

Clerk
Compensation
      Amendment

    


    


    It
      is
      further understood and agreed that the undersigned herein; Mr. Guy Pipolo,
      whom
      has been retained to serve as the Chief Operating Officer shall be entitled
      to
      an annual equity assignment in connection with his services to, and on behalf
      of
      the Company. It is further understood that Mr. Pipolo will be compensated on
      a
      per annum basis pursuant to the attached schedule articulated herein referred
      to
      as “Schedule A”. 

    


    Such
      compensation shall be issued on the anniversary date of the employment agreement
      as adopted by the company and shall continue as long as Mr. Pipolo is employed
      with the Company. Further, such compensation shall be reviewed and revised
      in a
      manner consistent with the employment agreement to mitigate any increases in
      responsibility as inured.

    


    “Schedule
      A”

       


    
      	
              Stock

            	 	
              Warrants
                (*)

            
	
              1,500,000
                Common Shares

            	 	
              3,000,000
                Common Warrants

            


    

     

    Notes:
      All such warrants, as issued and assigned, shall be subject
      to a bonafide Board Resolution affording the assignee the right to convert
      same
      on a cashless basis pursuant to such assignment having been issued in accordance
      with the governing employment agreement. Further, it is understood and accepted
      that such assignee must be in the full time employment of the Company pursuant
      to the terms and conditions as set forth.

     

     

    
      	
              Agreed:

            	 	
              Agreed:

            
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	
               

            	 	
               

            
	
              Clickable
                Oil

            	 	
              Mr.
                Guy Pipolo

            
	 	 	 
	
              Dated:

            	 	
              Dated:
-  Home 
-  Safety 
-  Carrier Safety 

# In This Section

                      -  New Entrant Safety Assurance Program 
                      -  New Entrant Safety Assurance Program Brochure 
                      -  New Entrant Online Training 
                      -  New Entrant Program Videos 
                      -  New Entrant Program FAQs 

## Contact Us

New Entrant Safety AssuranceFederal Motor Carrier Safety AdministrationEnforcement and Compliance Division
1200 New Jersey Avenue SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**newentrant@dot.gov**Business Hours:**9:00am-5:00pm ET, M-F

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# New Entrant Program Videos

## New Entrant Program Videos

View videos related to the New Entrant Program.
758 S.E.2d 708

#### In the Matter of Joenathan Shelly CHAPLIN, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001090.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001091.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 23, 2014.

ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel asks this Court to place respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17 of the *185Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). The petition also seeks appointment of the Receiver, Peyre T. Lumpkin, pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE. Respondent consents to being placed on interim suspension and to the appointment of the Receiver.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s license to practice law in this state is suspended until further order of this Court.

Respondent is hereby enjoined from taking any action regarding any trust, escrow, operating, and any other law office account(s) respondent may maintain at any bank or other financial institution, including, but not limited to, making any withdrawal or transfer, or writing any check or other instrument on the account(s).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lumpkin is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent’s client files, trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office account(s) respondent may maintain. Mr. Lumpkin shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent’s clients. Mr. Lumpkin may make disbursements from respondent’s trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating accounts), and any other law office account(s) respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment. Respondent shall promptly respond to Mr. Lumpkin’s requests for information and/or documentation and shall fully cooperate with Mr. Lumpkin in all other respects.

Further, this Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, escrow, operating, and/or any other law account(s) of respondent, shall serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that Peyre T. Lumpkin has been duly appointed by this Court and that respondent is enjoined from making withdrawals or transfers from or writing any check or other instrument on any of the account(s).

Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that the Receiver, Peyre T. Lumpkin, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive respondent’s mail and *186the authority to direct that respondent’s mail be delivered to Mr. Lumpkin’s office.

Mr. Lumpkin’s appointment shall be for a period of no longer than nine months unless an extension of the period of appointment is requested.

/s/Jean H. Toal, C.J.

FOR THE COURT
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Big Ridge, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor              

#   Big Ridge, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor

Big Ridge LAKE 2011-0699 Argument Notice 2-19-15.pdf

Big Ridge LAKE 2011-0699 Argument Notice 2-19-15.htm

Big Ridge v Secretary of Labor Docket LAKE 2011-699-R et al at 10am.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APP EALS OF TEX AS NO. WR-83,123-02

IN RE RAY NORRIS RANDALL, Relator

ON AP P LICATION FOR AWRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 959285-A IN THE 184TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Relator has f

iled a mot ion for leave to file an a pplication for a

writ of mandamus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. I n it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in the 184th District Court of Har ris County , that more than 35 day s have elapse d, and that the application has not y et been forwa rded to this Court. This Court’s rec ords indicate that the district court ente red a

n order desig nating issues on J anuar y 8, 2015. Respondent, the J udg e of the 184th District Court of Har ris County , shall file a response with this Court by having the District Clerk submit the rec ord on such habea s corpus application. I n the alternative, Respondent may resolve the issues set out in the order desig nating issues and then have2

the District Clerk submit the rec ord on such application. I n either case , Respondent’s answe r shall be submitt ed within 30 day s of the date of this o rd er . T h i s appli cation for leave to file a writ of mandamus will be held in abe y ance until R espondent ha s submitt ed the a ppropriate response .

Filed: Aug ust 26, 2015 Do not publish
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ronald NORMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-20679

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 3, 2016.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ronald Norman, Pine Knot, KY, pro se.

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Ronald Norman has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Norman has filed a response as well as a motion for leave to file a supplemental response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Norman’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion *267for leave to withdraw and Norman’s motion for leave to file a supplemental response are GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.