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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2655 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2655

To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from carrying out the launch of a 
 missile as part of a test program in any case in which an unavoidable 
or anticipated result of the launch would be the release of debris in a 
   land area of the United States outside a designated Department of 
                          Defense test range.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 1993

  Ms. Shepherd (for herself, Mrs. Schroeder, Ms. Furse, Mr. Miller of 
  California, Mr. Vento, Mr. Beilenson, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Conyers, Mr. 
 Waxman, and Mr. Edwards of California) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from carrying out the launch of a 
 missile as part of a test program in any case in which an unavoidable 
or anticipated result of the launch would be the release of debris in a 
   land area of the United States outside a designated Department of 
                          Defense test range.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MISSILE LAUNCHES.

    (a) Limitation.--The Secretary of Defense may not conduct a launch 
of a missile as part of a test program in any case in which an 
unavoidable or anticipated result of the launch would be the release of 
debris in a land area of the United States outside a designated 
Department of Defense test range.
    (b) Definition of Debris.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
``debris'' does not include particulate matter that is regulated for 
considerations of air quality.

                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Errardo SANTILLANA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-13708

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 5, 2014.

Cherie Krigsman, Natalie Hirt Adams, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Kathy Peluso, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Cynthia Judith Hernandez, Law Offices of Cynthia Hernandez, Tampa, FL, Errar-do Santillana, Fmc Lexington, Lexington, KY, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Cynthia J. Hernandez, appointed counsel for Errardo Santillana, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. Cali*fornia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that coun*706sel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7810

ANTONIO EUGENE DAVIS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 versus

GENE JOHNSON,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (CA-03-343-3)

Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2004

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Eugene Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Eugene Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding 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 his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir 2001). We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Davis 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
#### Jorge AVILA-AVILA; Azucena Meza-Arciniega, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72962.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 18, 2011.

Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Tracie Nicole Jones, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Avila-Avila and Azucena Meza-Arciniega, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen because they failed to establish the required prejudice. *See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft,*339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).

Counsel’s August 30, 2010, motion to withdraw is granted.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * IN THE 

OF MARYLAND

* COURT OF APPEALS

v. * OF MARYLAND

* Misc. Docket AG No. 64

DAVID FERNANDO MORENO * September Term, 2020

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for 60-Day Suspension by Consent filed by 

the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and the Respondent, David Fernando 

Moreno, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-736, in which the Respondent admitsthat he violated 

Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 8.4(d) of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional 

Conduct, it is this 4th day of January, 2021

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the Respondent, David 

Fernando Moreno, be and hereby is immediately suspended from the practice of law for a 

period of 60 days; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of David Fernando 

Moreno from the register of attorneys in this Court, and certify that fact to the Trustees of 

the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of all judicial tribunals in 

this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761.

 /s/ Robert N. McDonald

Senior Judge
# FY17Q1

# FY17Q2

# FY17Q3

# FY17Q4

# PFGE - User Notes
**Exhibit
      32.2**








**Certification
      pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





I,
      Gregory M. Krzemien, the Principal Financial Officer of Mace Security
      International, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-K of Mace Security International,
      Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the “December 31, 2007 Form 10-K”),
      which this certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
      or 78o(d)) and information contained in the December 31, 2007 Form 10-K fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Mace Security International, Inc.








Dated:
      March 31, 2008




/s/
      Gregory M. Krzemien


Gregory
      M. Krzemien





*
      A
      signed original of this written statement as required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished
      to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Chateau Communities, Inc. or CP Limited Partnership on Form S-8 (File Nos.
33-84616 and 333-84616) and Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-36323, 333-28703, 333-4544,
333-4544-01, 333-43981, 333-74399, and 333-38307) or our report dated February
8, 2000, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Chateau Communities, Inc. and CP Limited Partnership,
respectively, as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 1999, which reports are included in the Annual
Reports on Form 10-K, respectively.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP



Denver, Colorado
March 23, 2000
frhc_ex1003





 







EXHIBIT 10.03

 





Certain portions of this exhibit (indicated by “[***]”)
have been omitted pursuant to Item 601(a)(6) of Regulation
S-K.



This exhibit is an English translation of a foreign language
document. The Company hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon
request, a copy of the foreign language document.




 



Supplementary agreement No. 1 to the employment
contract 



No. 10 dated August 11, 2011 


 

Moscow                                                                                                          March          
02, 2015 

(Place of
conclusion the supplementary agreement)


 



Freedom Finance Investment Company Limited Liability
Company,




(Full name of a legal entity in accordance with its
Charter)


 



represented by its Financial
Director,
Mr. Povalishin Maxim Sergeyevich,



(title of authorized person; Full Name)



 



acting based on  Power of
attorney n/n dated October 27, 2012, hereinafter
referred to as the 





«Employer», on the one hand, and Mr.
Turlov Timur Ruslanovich,


(Full Name)




 



hereinafter referred to as the «Employee», on
the other hand, have concluded this supplementary
agreement to the employment
contract dated August
11, 2011, No. 10 as
follows: 


 

1. In
accordance with paragraph 4 of Close 57 of the Labor Code of the
Russian Federation, the section (paragraphs, sub-closes)
paragraph 3.1 of
the employment contract regulating the wages payment shall be
deemed to have lost force. 


 

2. Insert into section
(paragraphs, sub-closes) of the employment contract a
section (paragraphs, sub-closes) stating: 


«For the
performance of duties stipulated by the terms hereof, the Employee
is paid a salary for a title in the amount of 300,000.00 (three
hundred thousand) rubles per month.» 


 

3. This
supplementary agreement is an integral part of the employment
contract dated August
11, 2011, No. 10, is made in two copies
having equal legal force. One counterpart is keeping by the
Employer in the Employee’s personal data, the second by
the Employee. 


 

4. The employment contract alternations stipulated
hereby come into force from March
02, 2015. 


 

5. Supplementary
agreement parties’ details 


 


The Employer: Location: Facility
2, 23
bld., Trubnaya str., Moscow, 127051 


 


The Employee: Mr.
Turlov Timur Ruslanovich, passport series [***] issued
by Department of the Federal Migration Service of Russia
[***] on February 16, 2015, unit code:
[***], registered at address: [***]. 


 


	


The Employer

	

The Employee 


	
 

	
 


	


/s/ M.S.
Povalishin

	

/s/ T.R.
Turlov



	


Mr. M.S.Povalishin

	

Mr. T.R.Turlov  


	


(signature and company seal)

	

(signature) 


	
 

	
 


	


Translation of the company seal: 

	
 


	


/ Limited Liability Company, Moscow 

	
 


	


PNRN 1107746963785  

	
 


	


Freedom Finance Investment Company/
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5017]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 00N-1501]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB 
Approval; Threshold of Regulation for Substances Used in Food-Contact 
Articles

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Threshold of Regulation for 
Substances Used in Food-Contact Articles'' has been approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Schlosburg, Office of 
Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 26, 2000 
(65 FR 81530), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0298. 
The approval expires on February 29, 2004. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

    Dated: February 23, 2001.
William K. Hubbard,
Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning, and Legislation.
[FR Doc. 01-5017 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
DRAFT

Has your project concept been approved by your Assistant Administrator? 

If not, please request a consult to help you structure the product for approval.

1. Project leader: 2. Project leader's email: (Example: someone@usda.gov)

3. Project leader's phone number: 4. Project due date:

 6. Describe your project: (Please explain what you hope to accomplish with your project, the audience, your messages, and the desired 

 outcome.)

Submit your request to designfeedback@usda.gov. 

We will respond to your submission within two business days and will work to set up a meeting to discuss your 

request. If you have questions or concerns, please reach out to the Director and Deputy Director of CPAS.

FSIS 1240-2 (04/04/2023)

 Yes No

 5. Please indicate the type of product you would like created: (Note that OPACE will discuss the project with you and may advise you 

that another product will be more effective in obtaining your goals and in the timeframe needed. Examples of products include publications, fact 

sheets/information sheets, recruitment, or educational campaigns. Examples of visual aids include graphics, infographics, photo requests, motion 

graphics, videos, etc.) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

OPACE Communications Product 

and 

Visual Aids Request Form
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Edward JACKSON, a/k/a Aaron Green, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-4660.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2007.

Decided: March 27, 2007.

*271Herbert L. Hively, II, Hurricane, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, R. Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Edwai'd Jackson pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Jackson was sentenced by the district court to 262 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Jackson contends the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable because it included an enhancement under the career offender guideline. We affirm.

When reviewing the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, this court reviews findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo. *United States v. Green,*436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert. *denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006). A sentence is unreasonable if based on an error in construing or applying the Sentencing Guidelines. *Id.*at 456-57. Jackson argues that the district court should have sentenced him within the guideline range established by his offense conduct and criminal history because it was sufficient to satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). However, because Jackson does not allege that the district court relied on an improper fact or erred in its determination that Jackson satisfied the criteria for enhancement as a career offender, we conclude that his sentence is reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Additionally, we deny Jackson’s pro se motion for appointment of new counsel on 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 in the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 12, 2001, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Biotransplant, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are Immerge BioTherapeutics, Charlestown, MA; and Infigen, Inc., DeForest, WI. The nature and objectives of the venture are to conduct research on the genetic modification of pigs by nuclear transfer technology.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 01-5061  Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 
 As
independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report, which contains an explanatory paragraph relating to
substantial doubt with respect to the Company’s ability to continue as a going
concern, dated March 30, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements
of Symbollon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as of and for the years ended December 31,
2008 and 2007 included in this Form 10-K, into the Company’s previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-86704, 333-30467, 333-30359
and 333-80368) and Form SB-2 (File Nos. 333-148787,333-109772, 333-124687,
333-136871, and 333-140200).
 
 
 
 /s/Vitale,
Caturano & Company, P.C.
 
 VITALE,
CATURANO & COMPANY, P.C.
 
 
 March
30,2009
 Boston,
Massachusetts
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2356 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2356

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 14 (legislative day, September 7), 1993

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 to extend the 
      authority of the Secretary of the Army to carry out certain 
              construction projects in the Virgin Islands.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 406 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (48 U.S.C. 1405c note; 104 
Stat. 4646) is amended by striking subsection (c).

            Passed the House of Representatives September 13, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```