alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §§1241 to 1244. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–230, §24, Sept. 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 466

Sections, act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title II, §209(a), (b) (pt.), (c), (d), 42 Stat. 1467, related to supervision by Comptroller of Currency, assessment of credit corporations to pay administrative expenses, appointment and compensation of examiners of National Agricultural Credit Corporations and laws applicable, and expenses of examinations, respectively.
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40741

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AQUILEO AYALA-FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-2469-ALL

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Aquileo Ayala-Flores appeals from his guilty plea conviction

and sentence for illegal reentry of a deported alien. AyalaFlores argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing

Guidelines by characterizing his state felony conviction for

possession of a controlled substance as an “aggravated felony”

for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Ayala-Flores’s

argument is unavailing in light of circuit precedent. See United

States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). 
No. 05-40741

-2-

Ayala-Flores also argues that this circuit’s precedent is

inconsistent with Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101 (1943). 

Having preceded Hinojosa-Lopez, Jerome is not “an intervening

Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior

precedent.” See United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th

Cir. 1999).

Ayala-Flores also challenges the constitutionality of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although Ayala-Flores contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such

arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. 

See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Ayala-Flores properly

concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres and

circuit precedent, but he raises it here solely to preserve it

for further review.

AFFIRMED.
### §§1201, 1202. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–230, §24, Sept. 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 466

Sections, act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title II, §205(a), (b), 42 Stat. 1464, related to charges on loans and discounts and exacting unlawful interest, respectively.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-78 

June 11, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4067 Arrangements for Payment of Employer Liability 

OPINION: 

 The purpose of this letter is to set forth the position of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") with

respect to * * * position on the application of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

(ERISA"), to * * * (the "Plan"), as stated in its Annual Report to stockholders for the year 1975 and its Annual Report

to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 10-K, (the "Reports"), which you submitted to PBGC on April 5,

1976. 

The Reports state that "PBGC is on record that, should a claim (for employer liability under Section 4062 of ERISA)

be asserted and upheld it is willing to work out extended payment arrangements over a period of years for liquidation

of such a claim if the employer corporation is financially sound." Section 4067 of ERISA does authorize the PBGC to

make arrangements for payments of employer liability and it is the stated position of PBGC that we will use that power

in appropriate cases. However, no decision about payment terms has been made by the PBGC with respect to your plan.

Employer liability payment terms are arranged on a case by case basis after liability is asserted [*2] under Section 4062

of ERISA. 

The Reports also state that it is * * * position that should the Plan be terminated it "has no additional liability in

excess of the plan assets, since the terms of the plan make no unrestricted promise to pay monthly benefits in excess of

such assets and limit the Company's liability for benefits to contributions of a specified cents-per-hour for straight time

hours worked, as agreed upon by the Company and the Union." Congress, in enacting Title IV of ERISA, was aware of

employer liability limitation provisions contained in plans such as yours and determined that such provisions should be

inoperative in plans covered by Title IV. Thus, Congress set forth in Subtitle D of Title IV new standards for

determining the liability of an employer upon the termination of a plan with insufficient assets to pay guaranteed benefits.

These provisions apply to all plans covered by Title IV. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-18 

March 19, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(2) Plans Covered. Government Plans 

OPINION: 

 The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the status of your request for a determination of the coverage status

of the * * * 

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is actively considering the scope of the Government Plan exclusion,

which may be applicable to your plan. But our views must be coordinated with those of the Department of Labor and

the Internal Revenue Service, since those agencies are responsible for administering Titles I and II of the Pension Reform

Act, and both of those titles have similar exclusions. That coordination is now underway. As soon as it is completed,

we will answer your inquiry. 

We regret any inconvenience caused by the inevitable delay in responding substantively to your inquiry. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
Order entered December 30, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00959-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.B.S., B.L.S., B.L.P., D.E.S., AND A.B.P., 

CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 85179

ORDER

Before the Court are Mother’s and the children’s motions for an extension of 

time to file their briefs. We GRANT the motions and ORDER the briefs be filed 

no later than January 15, 2021. Because this is an accelerated appeal in a parental 

termination case, we caution the parties that further extension requests will not be 

granted absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10925-10926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4496]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


Bio-Life Labs, Inc., BSI2000, Inc., Calais Resources, Inc., EGX 
Funds Transfer, Inc., Great Western Land Recreation, Inc. (a/k/a Great 
Western Land and Recreation, Inc.), and Id-CONFIRM, Inc., Order of 
Suspension of Trading

February 24, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Bio-Life Labs, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
the period ended March 31, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
BSI2000, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the 
period ended December 31, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Calais Resources, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended August 31, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
EGX Funds Transfer, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended December 31, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Great Western Land Recreation, Inc. (a/k/a Great Western Land and 
Recreation, Inc.) because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
the period ended June 30, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Id-CONFIRM, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
the period ended March 31, 2007.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed

[[Page 10926]]

companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST 
on February 24, 2011, through 11:59 p.m. EST on March 9, 2011.


    By the Commission.

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4496 Filed 2-24-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### Lilly *v.*Pinnell-Dulin Lumber Company.

[No. 12,182.

Filed March 20, 1922.]

Master and *Servant.—Finding, of Industrial Board that injury, did not arise out of employment held*conclusive.—In a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for compensation for accidental injuries, the question as to whether the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment is a question of fact for the Industrial Board, and its finding will not be disturbed on appeal where there was evidence to sustain the finding.

From Industrial Board of Indiana.

Claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by Sarah A. Lilly, Guardian of William Lilly, against the Pinnell-Dulin Lumber .. Company. From a denial of an award, the claimant appeals.

*Affirmed.*

*J. F. Neal*and *N. C. Neal,*for appellant.

*Meade Vestal*and *Turner, Adams, Merrell & Locke,*for appellee.

Remy, J.

William Lilly was engaged as an employee of appellant in unloading bags of cement from a freight car. While in the line of his employment, he fell upon the floor of the car, where he was found by fellow employees, to whom he stated at the time that he had had “a dizzy spell” and “had fallen over.” He was taken home, and that night had a stroke of paralysis. Within a year, he was declared a person of unsound mind, and appellant was appointed as his guardian. There was some evidence submitted as to his physical condition, both before and after the time he was found lying upon the floor of the freight car. Claiming that the condition of her ward was the result of an injury which arose out of and in the course of the ward’s employment by appellee, appellant filed an application for compensation. From an order of the Industrial Board denying compensation, this appeal is prosecuted. The *587sole question for determination is whether the physical infirmities or injuries for which compensation is asked arose out of William Lilly’s employment by appellee. That was a question of fact for the Industrial Board. There is evidence to sustain the finding. See, *Gardiner*v. *Cochran Chair Co.*(1922), 78 Ind. App. 94, 134 N. E. 873.

Affirmed.
#### George N. Hook v. New York City Railway Company. Samuel Matkoff v. New York City Railway Company. William Harrison v. New York City Railway Company. Eugene Reis v. Drug and Chemical Company. Julius R. Siegel v. United States Mailing Tube Company.

Applications for leave to appeal to Appellate Division from Appellate Term denied, with ten dollars costs in each case.
EXHIBIT 35.1






SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT






I, Julia A. Sloat, Treasurer of AEP Texas Central Company (the "Servicer"), certify that:




(a) A review of the Servicer's activities during the reporting period covered by this Report on Form 10-K and of its performance under that certain Transition Property Servicing Agreement dated as of March 14, 2012 between AEP Texas Central Transition Funding III LLC, as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer (the "Servicing Agreement") has been made under my supervision.




(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.






Date: March 28, 2014






/s/ Julia A. SloatName:  Julia A. Sloat


Title: Treasurer and Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function, AEP Texas Central Company, as Servicer
|   | (a) | A review of the Trustee's activities for the period of January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period") and of the Trustee's performance under the Trust Agreement dated October 14, 2011 between Fixed lncome Client Solutions LLC as depositor (the "Depositor") and the Trustee, as the trustee and securities intermediary, in each case amended by a series supplement between the Depositor and the Trustee (as amended in each such case, the 'Trust agreement"), has been made under my supervision. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | To the best of my knowledge and based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Trust Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period for Fixed Income Trust for Prudential Financial, Inc. Notes, Series 2012-1. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1430** 

JAMES D. SULLIVAN ,
Movant

- Appellant ,

---------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Petitioner

– Appellee ,

v.
RICHARD VON BIBERSTEIN, JR. , Respondent

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 7:14

- cv - 00175

- BO )

Submitted : July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

James D. Sullivan , Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions a re not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James D. Sullivan appeals the district court ’ s order s accepting the recommendation s of the magistrate judge and granting
the Government’s petition to enforce an Internal Revenue Service third party summons and deny ing Sullivan’s motions to quash the summons and stay the proceedings. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by
the dist rict court. United States v. Biberstein , No. 7:14

- cv 00175

- BO (E.D.N.C. Mar

. 25, 2015)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
P M AI R 11 ^ 151 5 Tongas s Av e Phon e (907 ) 225-384 5 ext

. 33 9 •iw i a-UB'v y^M«^ ^ ^.^ , ,r-., Tr^ ^ Ketchikan , A K9990 1 Fa x(907)225-384 8 ••"•-vA.RIMENTO F ^ • •'\NSP0RTAT10 N ,:. ; -^ rToPtR/vnoN S Octobe r17 , 2011 'Ql i HCI 2 U A^-5 5 U.S

. Departmen t o fTransportatio n Docke t Operations , M-3 0 Wes t Buildin g groun d floor , Roo m W12-14 0 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , SE

. Washington , D C 2059 0 RE : Extensio n o fFyemptin n 476Q M Docke tM Q FAA-2nni-035: 1 Dea rAdministrator : P M AI R LL C db a Promec h Ai rreques t a n extensio n o fExemptio n 4760 M fro m Part § 135.20 3 (a)(1 ) o fTitl e 1 4 CFR , whic h allow s P M AI R LL C t o operat e seaplane s insid e th e ketchikan , Alaska , Clas s E airspac e Specia l Visua l Fligh t Rule s (SVFR ) belo w500 fee t abov e th e surface

. PMAI R LL C db a Promec h Ai rstate s tha t th e facts , conditions , circumstances , an d reason s remai n th e sam e a s presente d i n th e origina l exemptio n an d subsequen t petition s fo r extension

. Additionally , P M AI R LL C ha s operate d successfull yunde rthi s exemptio n sinc e th e dat e o fdecisio n b yth e FAA

. P M AI R LL C db a Promec h Ai rreques t tha t th e renewa l o fthi s exemptio n no t b e delaye d by publishin g i n th e Federa l Registe ran d state s tha t thi s wil l no t se t a precedent

. You rtimel yextensio n o fth e exemption , whic h expire s o n February28 , 2012 , wil l allo wu s t o continu e t o provid e safe , efficient , an d timel yai rcommerc e t o th e travelin g public

. Authorit yt o conduc t i n accordanc e wit h thi s exemptio n i s i n th e publi cinterest

. You rassistanc e i n thi s matte rappreciated

. Bes t regards ,

Ton yDupe a Chie fPilo t P M AI R LL C db a Promec h Ai r

cc : Jo n PercyPO I FAA/FSDO-0 5 Juneau , Alask a
### §14504. Effect of failure of selection for promotion: reserve first lieutenants of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and reserve lieutenants (junior grade) of the Navy

(a) General Rule.—A first lieutenant on the reserve active-status list of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps or a lieutenant (junior grade) on the reserve active-status list of the Navy who has failed of selection for promotion to the next higher grade for the second time and whose name is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to the next higher grade shall be separated in accordance with section 14513 of this title not later than the first day of the seventh month after the month in which the President approves the report of the board which considered the officer for the second time.

(b) Exceptions.—Subsection (a) does not apply (1) in the case of an officer retained as provided by regulation of the Secretary of the military department concerned in order to meet planned mobilization needs for a period not in excess of 24 months beginning with the date on which the President approves the report of the selection board which resulted in the second failure, or (2) as provided in section 12646 or 12686 of this title.

(c) Officers in Grade of First Lieutenant or Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Found Not Fully Qualified for Promotion.—For the purposes of this chapter, an officer of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps on a reserve active-status list who holds the grade of first lieutenant, and an officer of the Navy on a reserve active-status list who holds the grade of lieutenant (junior grade), shall be treated as having failed of selection for promotion if the Secretary of the military department concerned determines that the officer would be eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade by a selection board convened under section 14101(a) of this title if such a board were convened but is not fully qualified for promotion when recommending for promotion under section 14308(b)(4) of this title all fully qualified officers of the officer's armed force in such grade who would be eligible for such consideration.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1611, Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2950; amended Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title V, §505(b)(2), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1087.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2001—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–107 added subsec. (c).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1996, see section 1691(b)(1) of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as a note under section 10001 of this title.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 679

Providing for a committee of two Members to be appointed by the House

to inform the President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 15, 2000

Mr. MCCOLLUM submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Providing for a committee of two Members to be appointed

by the House to inform the President.

1 Resolved, That a committee of two Members be ap2 pointed by the House to join a similar committee ap3 pointed by the Senate, to wait upon the President of the

4 United States and inform him that the two Houses have

5 completed their business of the session and are ready to

6 adjourn, unless the President has some other communica7 tion to make to them.

Æ
### §649i. Continuation on active duty: officers in certain military specialties and career tracks

In addition to continuation on active duty provided for in section 649h of this title, an officer to whom section 637a of this title applies may be continued on active duty in accordance with the provisions of such section 637a.

(Added Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title V, §507(a)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1748.)
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4323]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, 
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, April 6, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Shepard at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6095.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Wednesday, April 6, 2011, at 11 a.m. Pacific Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Timothy 
Shepard. For more information, please contact Mr. Shepard at 1-888-912-
1227 or 206-220-6095, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, 
Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: February 18, 2011.
Shawn Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2011-4323 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P