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

###### Bureau of Land Management, Alaska 

          - [AK-962-1410-HY-P] 

                    In accordance with Departmental regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that the decision to issue conveyance (DIC) to Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, notice of which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , Volume 66, Number 11, Pages 4038 and 4039, on January 17, 2001, is hereby modified in part.                 

                    Notice of the modified decision will be published once a week, for four (4) consecutive weeks, in the                     *Arctic Sounder.*                     Copies of the modified decision may be obtained by contacting the Alaska State Office of the Bureau of Land Management, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599 ((907) 271-5960).                 

Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision, an agency of the Federal government or regional corporation, shall have until April 6, 2001 to file an appeal. However, parties receiving service by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Appeals must be filed in the Bureau of Land Management at the address identified above, where the requirements for filing an appeal may be obtained. Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights. 

Except as modified, the decision, notice of which was given January 17, 2001, is final. 

Ronald E. Royer, 

Land Law Examiner, Branch of ANCSA Adjudication. 

[FR Doc. 01-5475 Filed 3-6-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-$$-U
#### The State ex rel. Rose, Appellant, *v.*McGinty, Judge, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty,*123 Ohio St.3d 86, 2009-Ohio-4050.]

(No. 2009-0464

Submitted August 11, 2009

Decided August 18, 2009.)

Floyd Rose, pro se.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment of the court of appeals denying a petition filed by appellant, Floyd Rose, for writs of procedendo and mandamus.

{¶ 2} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals because Rose does not challenge all of the independent reasons given by that court to deny the writs. *State ex rel. Schmidt v. School Emps. Retirement Sys.,*100 Ohio St.3d 317, 2003-Ohio-6086, 798 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 5; *Stewart v. Corrigan,*97 Ohio St.3d 80, 2002-Ohio-5316, 776 N.E.2d 103, ¶ 4. That is, Rose does not contest the propriety of the court of appeals’ denial of the writs based on his failure to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1) of the Eighth District Court of Appeals. Moreover, Judge McGinty has now ruled on Rose’s August 8, 2008 motion in Cuyahoga C.P. case No. CR-07-492008-B. “Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” *State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen*(2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50201 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CESAR WILLIAN PINEDA

- MARTINEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:12

- CR

- 1035

- 1

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Cesar Willian Pineda

- Martinez appeals his 46

- month within

- guidelines sentence for illegal reentry after remova l

. He argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the illegal reentry guideline lacks an empirical basis and effectively double counts criminal history, b ecause his motive for returning to the Un ited States was benign, and because illegal reentry essentially is a trespass offense.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 30, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50201 Document: 00512484211 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2013No. 13

- 50201

“ [A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable. ” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Pineda

- Martinez asserts that a presumption of reasonableness should not apply to his within

- guidelines sentence because the illegal reentry guideline is not supported by empirical data, but he recognizes that this argument is foreclo sed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530

- 31 (5th Cir. 2009). We previously have rejected similar arguments challenging the reasonableness of a sentence. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529

- 31 ( rejecting
argu ment that lack of an empirical basis for the applicable guideline rendered the sentence unreasonable); United States v. Gomez

- Herrera, 523 F.3d 554,
565

- 66 (5th Cir. 2008) ( rejecting argu ment that benign motive for reentry rendered sentence unreasonable); United States v. Aguirre

- Villa, 460 F.3d 681 , 683 (5th Cir. 2006) ( rejecting argu ment that illegal reentry is a mere trespass offense). In the instant case, the district court had before it both mitigating and aggravating factors. It balanced these factors and determined that a sentence at the mid dle of the applicable guidelines range was appropri ate. The fact that this court “ might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We conclude there is no reason to disturb the presumption of reasonableness in this case. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-50201 Document: 00512484211 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2013
**Exhibit      21**

|                                                  |   | **State                of** |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
| **Subsidiary**                                        |   | **Incorporation**           |
|                                                  |   |                        |
| Mace                Security International, Inc.      |   | Delaware                    |
| Car                Care, Inc.                         |   | Delaware                    |
| Care                Investment, Inc.                  |   | Delaware                    |
| Colonial                Full Service Car Wash, Inc.   |   | Texas                       |
| Crystal                Falls Car Wash, Inc.           |   | Delaware                    |
| CRCD,                Inc.                             |   | Texas                       |
| Eager                Beaver Car Wash, Inc.            |   | Florida                     |
| F.E.D.                Properties, Inc.                |   | New                York     |
| 50's                Classic Car Wash of Lubbock, Inc. |   | Texas                       |
| Mace                Car Wash - Arizona, Inc.          |   | Arizona                     |
| Mace                Car Wash, Inc.                    |   | Delaware                    |
| Mace                Security Centers, Inc.            |   | Colorado                    |
| Mace                Security Products, Inc.           |   | Delaware                    |
| Mace                Texas I, Inc.                     |   | Delaware                    |
| Mace                Texas II, Inc.                    |   | Delaware                    |
| Mace                Trademark Corp.                   |   | Delaware                    |
| Mace                Truck Wash, Inc.                  |   | Delaware                    |
| Mace                Wash, Inc.                        |   | Delaware                    |
| MSP                Retail, Inc.                       |   | Colorado                    |
| Worth                Manufacturing Company, Inc.      |   | Texas                       |
[No. 58653-0-I.

Division One.

September 17, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. James C. Stephens, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 06-1-00854-0, Larry E. McKeeman, J., entered July 21, 2006. *Affirmed in part, reversed in part,*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Dwyer, J., concurred in by Coleman and Ellington, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                              84
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   249
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              114
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,146
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       249
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (78,146)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (78,146)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (78,146)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Granting Enterprise File Exchange (EFX) Authorization

1. Sign-in to FDICconnect

2. Press Continue

3. Select “Coordinator Functions” from the FDICconnect Business Center Menu

4. Select “Manage Transactions”

5. Click the radio button next to “Enterprise File Exchange”

6. Click the “Manage Transaction Users” at the bottom of the page

7. Find the user name that you wish to make the Designated Contact

8. Change the Privileges of that user from “None" to “Execute”

9. Click the “Update Privileges” button
#### Gregorio R. MACHADO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-60921.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 9, 2007.

Leon Fresco, Holland & Knight, Rebecca Ann Sharpless, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.

David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Andrew Cunningham MacLachlan, Edward C. Durant, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before REAVLEY, DEMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We reject Petitioner’s argument that this case was improperly transferred to this Court under the Real I.D. Act, because his claim is not independent of his order of removal. We consider this case as a petition for review of a removal order which Petitioner has previously assailed in his first petition for review filed in this Court.

In 1999 this court dismissed Petitioner’s first petition for review because of lack of jurisdiction. One panel cannot overrule another panel of the court. If we were to consider the claim of the manner of removal to give us jurisdiction, we would conclude that this is for Congress and the Executive and not for the courts.

DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32(b)
 CORE MOLDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Herman F. Dick, Jr.Herman F. Dick, Jr.Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief
Financial OfficerMay 13, 2008
M A N D A T E

TO THE 186TH DISTRICT COURT of BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 16th day of April, 

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Aaron Lee Robert Flores, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-15-00148-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 2014CR1271)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 16, 2015.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal 

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 26th day of May, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
EXHIBIT
31.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, J.
Wade Mezey, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Form 10-K for Mezey Howarth Racing Stables,
Inc.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the periods covered by this report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:





a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;





b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting;




and





5. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and





b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.






Date:
April 15, 2008





/s/ J.
Wade Mezey


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


J. Wade
Mezey


CEO
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20

- 577

_____________________________
F REDDIE R. P ATTERSON , III
, Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Meredith Charbula , Judge

. September 18, 2020

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , C.J., and B ILBREY and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Freddie R. Patterson, III, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Diversified Restaurant Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008, I, T. Michael Ansley, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  March 30, 2009 Diversified Restaurant Holdings, Inc. By: /s/ T. Michael Ansley T. Michael Ansley  Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Diversified Restaurant Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008, I, Jason T. Curtis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  March 30, 2009 Diversified Restaurant Holdings, Inc. By: /s/ Jason T. Curtis Jason T. Curtis
2009-1496.

#### State v. Napper.

Ross App. No.08CA3081, 2009-Ohio-3922.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2819 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to report on opioid prescribing 

rates of physicians of the Veterans Health Administration and to conduct 

pain management training for those physicians with the highest rates 

of opioid prescribing. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2018 

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to report on 

opioid prescribing rates of physicians of the Veterans 

Health Administration and to conduct pain management 

training for those physicians with the highest rates of 

opioid prescribing. 

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


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2819 IS

1 SECTION 1. ANNUAL REPORTS ON VETERANS HEALTH AD2 MINISTRATION PHYSICIAN OPIOID PRE3 SCRIBING RATES AND MANDATORY PAIN 

4 MANAGEMENT TRAINING FOR HIGHEST PRE5 SCRIBERS. 

6 (a) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Not less frequently than 

7 once each year, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 

8 transmit to each individual employed by the Veterans 

9 Health Administration as a physician a report on the 

10 opioid prescribing rates of the individual. 

11 (b) PAIN MANAGEMENT TRAINING.—Each fiscal 

12 year, the Secretary shall ensure that each of the individ13 uals employed by the Veterans Health Administration as 

14 physicians who were among the 10 percent of individuals 

15 employed by the Administration as physicians who had the 

16 highest opioid prescribing rates in the most recently com17 pleted fiscal year receive pain management training. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


(SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of PICO Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John R.
      Hart, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and





(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.














Date:  May
      9,
      2007





/s/
      John R. Hart


John
      R.
      Hart


President
      and Chief Executive Officer