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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2752

To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to prohibit the transportation of

solid waste from the State in which the waste was generated to another

State for purposes of treatment, storage, or disposal, unless the State

in which the waste was generated has in effect a law prohibiting nonreturnable beverage containers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 27, 1993

Mr. CARR of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to prohibit the

transportation of solid waste from the State in which

the waste was generated to another State for purposes

of treatment, storage, or disposal, unless the State in

which the waste was generated has in effect a law prohibiting nonreturnable beverage containers.

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 ‘‘Interstate Recycling

5 Promotion Act’’.
2

HR 2752 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SHIPPING WASTE OUTSIDE

2 STATES WITHOUT BOTTLE BILLS.

3 (a) PROHIBITION.—(1) Subtitle D of the Solid Waste

4 Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is amended by add5 ing at the end the following new section:

6 ‘‘SEC. 0411. PROHIBITION ON SHIPMENT OF WASTE OUT7 SIDE CERTAIN STATES.

8 ‘‘It shall be lawful for any State to exclude from

9 treatment, storage or disposal within its boundaries any

10 quantity of solid waste from any other State which does

11 not have, at a minimum, a substantially equivalent State

12 law promoting or requiring the recycling of any portion

13 of the solid waste products involved. Such laws shall in14 clude but not be limited to a law prohibiting the manufac15 ture, sale or introduction into commerce of any nonreturn16 able beverage container with respect to which no reason17 able refundable money deposit is required by consumer.’’.

18 (2) The table of contents for such Act is amended

19 by inserting the following after the item relating to section

20 4010:

‘‘Sec. 4011. Regulation on shipment of waste between certain States’’.

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 4011 of the Solid

22 Waste Disposal Act, as added by subsection (a), shall take

23 effect on January 1, 1994.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2551

To authorize the award of the Southwest Asia Service Medal to any member

of the Armed Forces who was assigned to duty outside the United

States during the Persian Gulf War with a unit that actively engaged

in combat operations during that war.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 29, 1993

Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To authorize the award of the Southwest Asia Service Medal

to any member of the Armed Forces who was assigned

to duty outside the United States during the Persian

Gulf War with a unit that actively engaged in combat

operations during that war.

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

3 SECTION 1. SOUTHWEST ASIA SERVICE MEDAL.

4 The Secretary of Defense shall provide that eligibility

5 for the Southwest Asia Service Medal shall be extended

6 to any member of the Armed Forces who was assigned

7 to duty outside the United States with a unit that actively
2

•HR 2551 IH

1 engaged in combat operations in the Persian Gulf War

2 during the period beginning on January 16, 1991, and

3 ending on March 3, 1991.

Æ
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

 

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

 

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of report (Date of earliest event reported)  November 19, 2003
 

Petroleum Development Corporation

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

Nevada                                0-7246                                95-2636730

(State or Other Jurisdiction	(Commission		 (IRS Employer

of Incorporation)	File Number) 	Identification No.)

103 East Main Street; Bridgeport, WV    26330

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code    304-842-3597
no change

(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report

 

 

 

 

 

Item 5.	Other Events.

	On November 19, 2003, the Company issued a news release announcing the appointment of several new officers for Petroleum Development Corporation. The news releases are filed herewith as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated herein by reference.
 

EXHIBIT INDEX

 

	On November 19, 2003, the Company issued a news release announcing the appointment of several new officers for Petroleum Development Corporation. The news releases are filed herewith as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated herein by reference.

 

 

SIGNATURES

 

	Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

 

 

                                                    

Petroleum Development Corporation

 

Date  November 19, 2003             

 

By  /s/ Darwin L. Stump                                   
        Darwin L. Stump

        Acting Chief Financial Officer
2009-1771.

#### Griesser v. State.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of William R. Griesser. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2642

To provide for financing of certain recreational facilities in the White

Mountain National Forest.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 15, 1993

Mr. SWETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for financing of certain recreational facilities in

the White Mountain National Forest.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINANCING AUTHORIZED.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—A bond issued as part of an issue

5 95 percent or more of the net proceeds of which are to

6 be used to provide sports facilities (within the meaning

7 of section 103(b)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of

8 1954) shall be treated as an exempt facility bond for pur9 poses of part IV of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Inter-
2

•HR 2642 IH

1 nal Revenue Code of 1986 if such facilities meet the fol2 lowing requirements:

3 (1) The facilities are located in or in the imme4 diate vicinity of the White Mountain National Forest

5 and are part of a single recreational complex located

6 in one town.

7 (2) A portion of the facilities are described in

8 a resolution adopted by a State industrial develop9 ment authority on July 17, 1985.

10 (b) CLARIFICATION OF RESOLUTION.—The resolu11 tion described in subsection (a)(2) shall be treated as if

12 it describes all of the sports facilities in or to be in the

13 recreational complex described in subsection (a)(1) and

14 such facilities shall be treated as if they were a single facil15 ity the acquisition and construction of which began before

16 September 2, 1972, and which is not now substantially

17 complete.

18 (c) LIMITATION.—The aggregate face amount of

19 bonds that may be issued under this section (excluding

20 current refundings) shall not exceed $40,000,000.

21 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect

22 on the date of the enactment of this Act. This section shall

23 not apply to any bond (excluding current refundings) is24 sued after September 30, 2003.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4924]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-106030-98]
RIN 1545-AW50


Source of Income from Certain Space and Ocean Activities; Also, 
Source of Communications Income; Hearing

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Change of date of public hearing; extension of time to submit 
outlines of oral comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document changes the date of the public hearing on the 
proposed regulations under section 863(d) governing the source of 
income from certain space and ocean activities. It also extends the 
time to submit outlines of oral comments for the hearing.

DATES: The public hearing will be held May 23, 2001, beginning at 10 
a.m. Additional outlines of oral comments must be received by May 2, 
2001.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held in Room 2615, Internal 
Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Send 
submissions to: Regulations Unit CC (REG-106030-98), room 5226, 
Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, 
DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. 
and 5 p.m. to: Regulations Unit CC (REG-106030-98), Courier's Desk, 
Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC. 
Alternatively, taxpayers may submit outlines of oral comments 
electronically directly to the IRS Internet site at http://www.irs.gov/tax regs/reglist.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, Anne 
Shelburne, (202) 874-1490; concerning submission, LaNita Van Dyke, 
(202) 622-7190 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, 
appearing in the Federal Register on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (66 FR 
3903), announced that a public hearing on the proposed regulations 
under section 863(d) governing the source of income from certain space 
and ocean activities would be held on March 28, 2001, in the 
Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC. Subsequently, the date of the public hearing has 
changed to May 23, 2001, at 10 a.m. in room 2615. Outlines of oral 
comments must be received by May 2, 2001.

Cynthia Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel (Modernization & 
Strategic Planning).
[FR Doc. 01-4924 Filed 2-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 2363** 

JOSEPHAT MUA , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE ’ S COUNTY/PRINCE GEORGE ’ S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; VERJEANA M. JACOBS, Individually and as Board Chairperson of Prince George ’ s Public Schools; DR. WILLIAM R. HITE, JR., Individually and as superintendent; ROGER C. THOMAS, Esquire; SYNTHIA J. SHILLING; MONICA GOLDSON, Individually and as Associate superintendent of Prince George ’ s Public Schools ; PIERRE DICKSON, Individually and as agent of the Board of Education of Prince George ’ s County; DR. KEVIN MAXWELL, Individually and as superintendent of Prince George ’ s Public Schools; DR. ALVIN L. CRAWLEY, Individually and as superintendent; ROBERT J. GA SKIN, Individually and Chief Human Resources of Prince George ’ s Public Schools; DR. LILLIAN M. LOWERY; ARDRA O ’ NEAL; ABBEY HAIRSTON , Defendants

– Appellees , and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFSCME; ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME), AFSCME LOCAL 2250 , Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv - 02249

- PJM )2 Submitted : June 10, 2016 Decided: June 21, 2016

Before KING, THACKER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Josephat Mua seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing Mua’s case based on Mua’s failure to file an amended complaint against the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and AFSCME Local 2250; dismissing, without prejudice, Mua’s claims against the remaining Defendants; and granting, in part, Mua’s motion for reconsideration

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order s Mua seeks to appeal are neither final order s nor appealable interlocutory or collateral order s . Moreover, Mua may challenge the district court’s orders in Appeal No. 16

- 1509. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot Mua’s motion for leave to file an amended ini tial brief and his motion to consolidate this appeal with Appeal No. 16

- 1509. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional proc ess.

DISMISSED
1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1730

___________ Richard E. Walden, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Eaton Corporation, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 3, 2006 Filed: March 8, 2006

___________ Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Richard E. Walden appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Employment Retirement In come Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit against his former employer, the Eaton Corporation (Eaton), brought after his longterm disability (LTD) benefits were discontinued. We concl ude that the district court properly applied an abuse-of-discretion st andard of review, and that the grant of summary judgment was proper. SeeTorres v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 405 F.3d 670, 677 (8th Cir. 2005) (revi ewing de novo adverse grant of summary judgment and2 Under the plan provision at issue, an employee is entitled to continued LTD benefits if he is “totally and continuously unable to engage in any occupation or to perform any work for compensation or prof it for which” he is, or might become, “reasonably well fitted by reason of edu cation, training, or experience.”
-2- district court’s determination of appropriate standard of re view in ERISA case involving denial of benefits).
Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, we must affirm if a reasonable person could have reached a similar decision, given the evidence before him. See Wise v. Kind & Knox Gelatin, Inc. , 429 F.3d 1188, 1190 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonable decision is one based on substantial evidence). We conclude that Eaton justifiably relied on Walden’s tax records and a denial letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) as proof of Walden’s work activities, as these documents reflected Walden’s own reports of material participation in the management of an automobile dealership and thus his ability to perform work for compensation. 2Cf. Riedl v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co. , 248 F.3d 753, 759 n.4 (8th Cir. 2001) (SSA’s determination is not binding but it is admissible evidence to support ERISA claim for LTD). Thus, the decision to discontinue the LTD benefits was supported by substantial evidence. See Wise , 429 F.3d at 1190 (it is not necessary to show that reasonable person would have reached decision, only that he could have; courts should hesitate to interfere with ERISA plan administration). We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Walden’s di scovery requests. See Sallis v. Univ. of Minn. , 408 F.3d 470, 477 (8th Cir. 2005) (review of district court’s discovery rulings is narrow and deferential).
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Buckhead Community
Bancorp, Inc. (the  Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the  Periodic Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to Title 18, Section 1350
United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his individual knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 14, 2008



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Marvin Cosgray     
|Marvin Cosgray         
|Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
32.1






STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-Q of China International Tourism
Holdings, Ltd. (the "Company") for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Lei,
Ming, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:






* the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




* the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






/s/
Lei, Ming


Lei,
Ming


Chief
Executive Officer




Date:
August 14, 2008




This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Luis Armando REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-72175.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 11, 2014.

Judith Seeds Miller, Law Office of Judith Seeds Miller, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Nicole Thomas-Dorris, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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 **

Luis Armando Reyes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 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. *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Reyes failed to establish the harm he suffered at the hands of guerrillas was on account of a protected ground. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 482, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Consequently, Reyes is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, and is not eligible for humanitarian asylum. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). The BIA found Reyes waived any claim that he had a well-founded fear of future persecu*493tion in the absence of a showing of past persecution. Reyes does not challenge the BIA’s finding.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Reyes’ CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in El Salvador. *See Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008). We reject Reyes’ contention that the agency failed to fully or properly analyze his CAT claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,018
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      516
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          17,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,056
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,147
<SALES>                                          2,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,170
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    227
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                227
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       227
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0.0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.0


</TABLE>