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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1648 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1648

  To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxy Benzophenone 
                             Sulfonic Acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 1993

  Mr. Tauzin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxy Benzophenone 
                             Sulfonic Acid.

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

SECTION 1. 2-HYDROXY-4-METHOXY BENZOPHENONE SULFONIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

       ``  9902.31.12   2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxy                      No change      No change      On or before     
                         Benzophenone Sulfonic Acid.                                            12/31/97      ''
                         (CAS No. 4065-45-6)                                                                   .
                         (provided for in subheading                                                            
                         2914.49.00).................  Free                                                     

    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In General.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
        warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Retroactive application to certain entries.--
        Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
        U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon proper request 
        filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th day 
        after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry, or 
        withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of any goods 
        described in heading 9902.31.12 of the Harmonized Tariff 
        Schedule of the United States (as added by subsection (a)) that 
        was made--
                    (A) after December 31, 1992; and
                    (B) before the 15th day after the date of the 
                enactment of this Act;
        shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
        withdrawal occurred on the 15th day after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-40,333]

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on November 5, 2001 in response to a worker petition which was filed on October 30, 2001 on behalf of workers at Lynchburg Foundry Company, Radford, Virginia. The subject firm is a subsidiary of Intermet Corporation.

The petitioning group of workers is subject to an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued (TA-W-40,060). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of December 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-32207 Filed 12-31-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
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 
-                   Electronic Case Management              

#   Electronic Case Management

##           Downloads        

efiling_report.pdf

##### 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
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3666 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3666

To amend title 4, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of State 
   to restrict the display of flags at diplomatic and consular posts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 1, 2021

  Ms. Malliotakis (for herself, Mr. Buck, Mr. Issa, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
Mast, Ms. Stefanik, and Mr. Guest) introduced the following bill; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 4, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of State 
   to restrict the display of flags at diplomatic and consular posts.

    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 ``Stars and Stripes Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. DISPLAY OF FLAGS AT DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 4, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 11. Display of flags at diplomatic and consular posts
    ``The Secretary of State shall prohibit the display of any flag or 
banner at any diplomatic or consular post, with the exception of the 
following flags:
            ``(1) The flag of the United States.
            ``(2) The flag of the country where the diplomatic or 
        consular post is located.
            ``(3) The flag of a State, territory, or possession of the 
        United States.
            ``(4) A departmental or secretarial flag.
            ``(5) The flag of an Armed Force.
            ``(6) A flag designed to honor persons who are classified 
        as prisoners of war or missing-in-action.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
10 the following new item:

``11. Display of flags at diplomatic and consular posts.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
pertaining to the 1986 Stock Options Plan (Form S-8 No. 33-44306), the 1991
Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1988 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors of Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc. (Form S-8 No.
33-44531), the Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc. Amended and Restated 1995
Incentive Stock Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-01759), the Gundle/SLT Environmental,
Inc. Amended and Restated 1995 Incentive Stock Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-63466),
and the Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc. 1996 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (Form S-8 No. 333-23299), and the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-27735) of Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc., and in the related
Prospectus of our report dated January 28, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.



                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Houston, Texas
February 27, 2002
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

Nos. 07-15-00322-CR 

 07-15-00323-CR 

MALCOM BROWN, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 320th District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court Nos. 69690-D & 70702-D, Honorable Don R. Emerson, Presiding 

 

September 30, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Appellant, Malcom Brown, appeals his convictions for burglary of a habitation

and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The certifications of defendant’s right to 

appeal executed by the trial court state that these are plea-bargain cases and

“defendant has NO right of appeal.” This circumstance was brought to the attention of 

appellant, and opportunity was granted him to obtain amended certifications entitling 

him to appeal. No such certifications were received within the time we allotted. Having 
2

received no amended certifications, we dismiss both appeals per Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 25.2(d).

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1339 

CA 12-01101 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

HEATHER MOUSAW, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

CITY OF OLEAN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

FRANCIS M. LETRO, BUFFALO (RONALD J. WRIGHT OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

BOUVIER PARTNERSHIP, LLP, BUFFALO (NORMAN E.S. GREENE OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County

(Michael L. Nenno, A.J.), entered September 9, 2011. The order

granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment and dismissed the

complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court. 

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### Jose VELOZ-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74528.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 22, 2008.

James G. Roche, Law Offices of James G. Roche, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.

NVL-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Robbin K. Blaya, Esq., Hillel Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Veloz-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the government’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting Veloz-Flores’ application for relief under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) to review de novo questions of law. *Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales,*468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not support Veloz-Flores’ contention that the BIA contravened 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) by engaging in de novo review of the IJ’s factual findings. The BIA explicitly limited its de novo review to the IJ’s exercise of discretion. *See id.*§ 1003.1(d)(3)(ii).

We reject Veloz-Flores’ contention that the BIA was required to grant relief because it agreed with the IJ that “unusual and outstanding” favorable equities were present. *See United States v. Gonzalez-Valerio,*342 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2003) (for the *possibility*of a favorable exercise of discretion, unusual or outstand*528ing equities are required for an applicant with a serious criminal history) (citing *Matter of Edwards,*20 I. & N. Dec. 191, 196 (BIA 1990)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

March 25, 2016

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 5, 2016

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. The American Coal Company,

Docket Nos. LAKE 2008-666, et al. (Issues include whether the 

Judge erred in vacating the unwarrantable failure designations for 

three violations.)

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM and DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILIES,

Appellants,

v.

E.H., the Mother,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-404

[October 13, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 19000006DPAXMX.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Samantha C. 

Valley, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, 

for appellant Guardian Ad Litem Program. 

Andrew Feigenbaum, Children's Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for 

appellant Department of Children and Families.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant 

Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 

West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
     June 29, 1996 Donnelly Corporation financial statements and is qualified
     in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                            8,568
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    67,850
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                      42,484
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                152,640
<PP&E>                                          290,965
<DEPRECIATION>                                  125,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  358,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           115,649
<BONDS>                                         122,798
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                         531
<COMMON>                                            991
<OTHER-SE>                                       92,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    358,293
<SALES>                                         671,297
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                671,297
<CGS>                                           544,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   544,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                9,530
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  12,005
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2,786
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              12,005
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     10,020
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      1.01
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
BOSTON CELTICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WAS FORMED ON APRIL 13, 1998. IT HELD NO
MATERIAL ASSETS AND WAS NOT ENGAGED IN OPERATIONS PRIOR TO JUNE 30, 1998.
EFFECTIVE JUNE 30, 1998, ITS ONLY MATERIAL ASSET IS ITS 99% LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
INTEREST IN BOSTON CELTICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II, WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN
OPERATIONS FOR THE ENTIRE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1998. ACCORDINGLY, THIS 
SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF BOSTON CELTICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND ITS 
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME 
OF BOSTON CELTICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE YEAR 
ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>               1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,468
<SECURITIES>                                     1,041
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,927
<PP&E>                                              45
<DEPRECIATION>                                      21
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,411
<BONDS>                                         63,985
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (32,926)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,047
<SALES>                                         75,680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,680
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,018
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,167
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,267
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,267
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.17
        

</TABLE>
#### Jasper Maurice WARREN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kathleen GREEN, Warden; Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services; David M. Mathis, M.D.; Correctional Medical Services, Inc.; Robert Smith, Medical Director, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-6790.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 6, 2010.

Jasper Maurice Warren, Appellant Pro Se. Michael O’Connor Doyle, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, Ryan Alexander Mitchell, Kramon & Graham, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Valerie L. Tetro, White-ford, Taylor & Preston, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jasper Maurice Warren appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Warren v. Green,*No. 1:09-cv-01308-RDB (D.Md. Apr. 30, 2010). Warren’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*