alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flag
    An official website of the United States government
     Here’s how you know Here’s how you know **Official websites use .gov**  A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**  A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
 Farm Service Agency
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 About FSA
  Ask USDA
  Contact Us
  Forms
 Menu
  close
   Home
    Programs & Services
     ARC/PLC Program
         Civil Rights
         Certified Mediation Program
         Climate Adaptation Plan
         Conservation Programs
         Cooperative Agreements
         Dairy Margin Coverage Program
         Disaster Assistance Programs
         Economic & Policy Analysis
       Emergency Relief 
         Environmental & Cultural Resource Compliance
         Farm Bill Home
         Farm Labor Stabilization & Protection Pilot Grants
         Farm Loan Programs
         Financial Management Information
         Increasing Land Access
         Initiatives
       Laws and Regulations
         Margin Protection Program for Dairy
         Market Facilitation Program
         MIDAS
         Organic Certification Cost Share Program
         Outreach & Education
         Payment Eligibility
         Price Support
         Rice Production Program
    State Offices
    Online Services
     LDP
         eARC/PLC
         Farmers.gov (FSA Farm+)
         FSA Online Data Resources
         Loan Assistance Tool
    Newsroom
     Fact Sheets
         News Releases
         Emergency Designations
         Stakeholder Information
         eFOIA
       Meetings & Events
         Public Service Announcements
         County Committee Elections
         Fence PostSearch small Search
 Delaware State Events
 Section TopicsDelaware HomeCounty OfficesCounty PCP DataDaily LDP RatesProgramsNewslettersState EventsState News ReleasesResources
 State Executive Director Robin Talley  Read Robin Talley '
 State Office Address 1221 College Park DRSuite 201
Dover, Delaware19904(302) 678-4250
(855) 389-2246
 Statewide Events Date
      Event Information
      LocationSchedule forthcoming **Acreage Reporting Dates** Date
      Eligible CropDec 15
      Small Grain
      Contact your local County FSA Office to file: County FSA OfficesMay 15
      Peas & PotatoesJuly 15
      Soybeans, corn, spring planted
 Home
   Programs & Services
   State Offices
   Online Services
   Newsroom
 Farmers.gov
          USA.gov
          USDA.gov
          Whitehouse.gov
       Accessibility Statement
          Common Questions
          Freedom of Information Act
       No FEAR Report
          Information Quality
          Non-Discrimination Statement
       Policies and Links
          Privacy Policy
          Sitemap
    Sign up for updates
      Subscribe
 Farm Service Agency
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 facebook-loFacebook
 youtube-loYouTube
 twitter-loTwitter
 gov-delivery-loTwitter
 rss-loRSS
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2523

To amend section 2119 of title 18, United States Code, to authorize imposition of the death penalty if death results from a carjacking, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 24, 1993

Mr. CANADY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 2119 of title 18, United States Code,

to authorize imposition of the death penalty if death

results from a carjacking, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. FEDERAL PENALTIES FOR AUTOMOBILE ROB4 BERY.

5 Section 2119 of title 18, United States Code, is

6 amended to read as follows:
2

•HR 2523 IH

1 ‘‘§ 2119. Motor vehicles

2 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, ‘covered motor

3 vehicle’ means a motor vehicle that has been transported,

4 shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce.

5 ‘‘(b) OFFENSES.—A person who, while in possession

6 of a firearm (as defined in section 921) or other weapon

7 or dangerous device—

8 ‘‘(1) intentionally strikes or otherwise makes

9 physical contact with a covered motor vehicle with a

10 motor vehicle operated by the person, with any other

11 thing, or with any part of the person’s body, in one

12 of the circumstances described in subsection (c); or

13 ‘‘(2) takes a covered motor vehicle from the

14 person or presence of another by force and violence

15 or by intimidation, or attempts to do so,

16 shall be punished under subsection (d).

17 ‘‘(c) CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH OFFENSE OC18 CURS.—The circumstances referred to in subsection (b)(1)

19 are that—

20 ‘‘(1) the person makes the contact with the in21 tent to injure an occupant of the motor vehicle or to

22 take or cause damage to the motor vehicle or any23 thing in the motor vehicle; or

24 ‘‘(2) in the course of events immediately follow25 ing the contact, an occupant of the motor vehicle is
3

•HR 2523 IH

1 injured or the motor vehicle or anything in it is

2 taken or damaged.

3 ‘‘(d) PENALTIES.—A person who violates subsection

4 (b) shall—

5 ‘‘(1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not

6 more than 15 years, or both;

7 ‘‘(2) if serious bodily injury (as defined in sec8 tion 1365) results, be fined under this title or im9 prisoned not more than 25 years, or both; and

10 ‘‘(3) if death results, be fined under this title

11 or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or

12 both, or sentenced to death.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,887
<SECURITIES>                                    21,101
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,268
<PP&E>                                               0<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,715
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,734
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,776
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,976
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,775)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (2,342)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,117)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Disclosure not required on interim financial statements.
<F2>Computation not applicable.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-4489) pertaining to the SOLA Optical 401 (K) Savings Plan,
the Registration Statement and amendments (Form S-8 No. 33-93788, 333-14749 and
333-61797) pertaining to the SOLA International Inc. Stock Option Plan and the
SOLA Investors' Stock Option Plan of SOLA International Inc. and the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-45929) pertaining to the registration
of common stock and/or debt securities of our report dated May 6, 1999, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of SOLA
International Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended March 31, 2001.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
June 27, 2001
Exhibit 32

                    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 Oak Ridge Micro-Energy, Inc.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, Mark Meriwether, President of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.



Dated: 8/19/03                             /s/Mark Meriwether
      --------                             ----------------------------
                                           Mark Meriwether
                                           President, CEO, Secretary/Treasurer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 227 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 227

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
 exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Kildee 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 make permanent the 
 exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Employer-Provided Tuition Assistance 
Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) Exclusion Made Permanent.--Section 127 of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 (relating to educational assistance programs) is amended 
by striking subsection (d).
    (b) Repeal of Restrictions Relating to Education at the Graduate 
Level.--
            (1) Paragraph (1) of section 127(c) of such Code is amended 
        by striking the last sentence.
            (2) Subsection (c) of section 127 of such Code is amended 
        by striking paragraph (8).
    (c) Increase in, and Indexing of, Maximum Exclusion.--
            (1) Paragraph (2) of section 127(a) of such Code is amended 
        by striking ``$5,250'' each place it appears and inserting 
        ``$6,000''.
            (2) Subsection (a) of section 127 is amended by adding at 
        the end thereof the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Cost-of-living adjustment of maximum exclusion.--In 
        the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 
        1993, the dollar amount contained in paragraph (2) shall be 
        increased by an amount equal to--
                    ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                    ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined 
                under section 1(f)(3), for the calendar year in which 
                the taxable year begins, by substituting `calendar year 
                1993' for `calendar year 1987' in subparagraph (B) 
                thereof.''
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1992.

                                 <all>
```
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Feldon Bonner II V. Saul Austin

Appellate case number: 01

- 09

- 01059

- CV

Trial court case number: 0751857

Trial court: 280th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: February 26, 201 3

Party filing motion: Ap pellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s sign ature: /s/ Sherry Radack

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle

Date: March 20, 2013
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ Nos. 98-4087/99-2057

___________ Margaret Holmes, * * Appellee/Cross Appellant, * Appeals from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Delta Memorial Hospital, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant/Cross Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 3, 2000 Filed: August 8, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Afterthirty-four years of satisfactory service, Margaret Holmes, an AfricanAmerican, was terminated from her position as a certified nurse’s assistant at Delta Memorial Hospital because she failed to clock out before leaving the hospital for ten minutes during her lunch break for a legitimate reason. Two days prior to her termination, Holmes had criticized two white nurses, one of whom was her immediate supervisor, for their treatment of an African-American patient, and these two nurses were influential in persuading Delta’s Chief Nursing Officer to terminate Holmes.1 The HONORABLE JAMES MAXWELL MOODY, United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Holmes filed this action against Delta, claiming it violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by terminating her because of her race. Following a bench trial, the district court 1 found that Holmes had proved a prima facie case of race discrimination, that Delta’s stated
reason for the termination was pretextual, and that Delta had intentionally discriminated against Holmes because of her race. The court awarded Holmes $15,000 in compensatory damages and attorney’s fees of $5,750.
Delta appeals the verdict for Holmes, and Holmes cross-appeals the fee award. After careful review of the record, we conclude the evidence was more than sufficient to support the district court’s ultimate finding of intentional discrimination. See Reeves
v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 120 S. Ct. 2097, 2108 (2000); Sanders v. Alliance Home Health Care, Inc. , 200 F.3d 1174, 1176 (8th Cir. 2000). As to the fee award, the district court applied the familiar lodestar analysis, determining a reasonable hourly rate and the number of hours reasonably expended for a case of this difficulty and complexity. Although Holmes’s counsel requested a higher hourly rate and argued that
more hours were reasonably expended, we conclude the district court’s fee award was not an abuse of its substantial discretion. See Thorne v. Welk Inv., Inc. , 197 F.3d 1205, 1213 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review); Polacco v. Curators of Univ. of Mo. , 37 F.3d 366, 370 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 23

- 00058

- CV

In re Victor J. Tapia

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

_

__ ____________________ ___________________ Rosa Lopez Theofani s , Justice

Before Chief J ustice By rne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Filed: March 3, 2023
#### Mark MELTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-7889.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 12, 2007.

Decided: March 27, 2007.

Mark Melton, Appellant Pro se.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mark C. Melton seeks to appeal the district court’s order partially accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Melton’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Melton 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.*
Exhibit 32


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Safe Technologies International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Randi Swatt, Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:


     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ Randi Swatt
-------------------------------------------
Randi Swatt, Chief Executive Officer and
Acting Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2008
#### Dan VARGA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-71301.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 10, 2014.

' Richard Harvey Trais, Richard H. Trais Attorney at Law, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.

Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Dan Varga, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny, the petition for review.

Substantial evidence support s the BIA s determination that, even if Varga is credible, he failed to establish that he suffered past persecution, because his experiences in Romania do not rise to the level of persecution. *See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (harassment, threats, and one beating did not compel finding of past persecution). Sub-’ stantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Varga failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, *see Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995) (evidence of discrimination insufficient to show well-founded fear of persecution), particularly in light of the fact that he made repeated voluntary returns to Romania, *see Loho v. Mukasey,*531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir.2008) (noting that “an alien’s history of willingly returning to his or her home country militates against a finding of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution”). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails. In light of this conclusion, we need not reach Varga’s contentions regarding nexus, corroboration, or credibility.

Because Varga has not established eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, Varga does not raise any arguments regarding the denial of CAT relief. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Nathaniel SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Food Service Officer Mr. NELSON; Food Service Mr. Taylor; Food Service Mr. Craze; Food Service Ms. Johnson; Food Service Ms. Venton; Administrative Food Service Brown; Administrative Food Service Argline, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-6103.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2014.

Decided: April 22, 2014.

Nathaniel Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Singleton seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss some, but not all, of Singleton’s claims asserted under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Singleton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

*DISMISSED.*