alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 75.901 Suspension and termination. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70334 , Aug. 29, 2024.
The Secretary may use the Office of Administrative Law Judges to resolve disputes that are not subject to other procedures. See, for cross-reference, the following: ( a ) 2 CFR 200.338 (Remedies for noncompliance).
( b ) 2 CFR 200.339 (Termination).
( c ) 2 CFR 200.340 (Notification of termination requirement).
( d ) 2 CFR 200.341 (Opportunities to object, hearings and appeals).
( e ) 2 CFR 200.342 (Effects of suspension and termination).
( f ) 2 CFR 200.344 (Post-closeout adjustments and continuing responsibilities).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
[79 FR 76093, Dec. 19, 2014]
###### Editorial Note on [Part 40](/current/title-27/part-40?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear by T.D. ATF-460, [66 FR 39094-39096](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/66-FR-39094), July 27, 2001; T.D. ATF-464, [66 FR 43479](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/66-FR-43479), Aug. 20, 2001; and T.D. TTB-91, [76 FR 5479](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/76-FR-5479), Feb. 1, 2011.

#### § 40.21 Cigar tax rates.

(a) Cigars are taxed at the following rates under [26 U.S.C. 5701(a)](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/26/5701):

| Type and amount | Tax rate for removals during the following periods: | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2002 to March 31, 2009 | April 1, 2009 and after |
| Small cigars per thousand | $1.828 | $50.33 |
| Large cigars\* | | |
| • percentage of sale price | 20.719% | 52.750% |
| • but not to exceed— | $48.75 per thousand | $0.4026 per cigar. |
| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| \* For large cigars: Until March 31, 2009, the percentage tax rate applies when the sale price is $235.294 per thousand or less, and the flat tax rate applies when the sale price is more than $235.294 per thousand. On and after April 1, 2009, the percentage tax rate applies when the sale price is $763.222 or less per thousand cigars, and the flat tax rate applies when the sale price is more than $763.222 per thousand cigars. | | |

(b) See [§ 40.22 of this part](/on/2024-08-30/title-27/part-40/section-40.22) for rules concerning determination of sale price of large cigars.

(c) Cigars not exempt from tax under [26 U.S.C. chapter 52](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/26/5201) and the provisions of this part which are removed but not intended for sale shall be taxed at the same rate as similar cigars removed for sale.

[T.D. ATF-420, [64 FR 71939](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/64-FR-71939), Dec. 22, 1999, as amended by T.D. TTB-75, [74 FR 14481](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/74-FR-14481), Mar. 31, 2009]
Williams, Renee (OST) />f; T - g S "^^'^^'^•^;,nWt if - f 

Subject: FW: Cape Air . AN3P0RTATJ0N 

>xi:T OPERATIONS 

m m ~8 A 10:18 

From: Letty Hockler rinailto:blhockler99(S)yahoo.com1 

Sent: Fri 11/5/2010 10:26 PM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Subject: Cape Air 

Dear Mayor Nelson, 

I see by our paper, today, that Gulfstream is filing for bankruptcy. To me that is a real eye opener as to why we 

should keep Cape Air. Didn't we go through this with a previous air line that left us high and dry in spite of 

their promises. 

I have used Cape Air many times and have found them to be reliable, affordable, courteous, helpful, friendly 

and a pleasure to use their air line. We don't need a bigger plane as the times that I have gone to Albany the 

most that was on the plane was 6 people. The flight schedule that they have can accommodate any body's 

travel schedule. 

Please keep Cape Air. There are many people in Ogdensburg that feel like I do and I hope they will write to you 

in Cape Air's favor. 

Yours truly, 

Letty A. Hockler
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 524.02

 522.80

 521.57

 520.35

 519.48

 517.96

 516.05

 514.28

 512.77

 511.29

 509.84

 508.62

 507.61

 506.59

 505.71

 504.98

 504.53

 504.18

 503.74

 502.72

 502.27

 501.95

 502.14

 502.42

 502.67

 502.87

 503.07

 502.98

 503.14

 503.12

 503.37

 293.4

 289.1

 284.8

 280.6

 277.6

 272.4

 266.0

 260.1

 255.2

 250.4

 245.8

 241.9

 238.7

 235.6

 232.8

 230.6

 229.2

 228.2

 226.8

 223.7

 222.4

 221.4

 222.0

 222.8

 223.6

 224.2

 224.8

 224.5

 225.0

 224.9

 225.7

STORAGE

-4.9

-4.3

-4.3

-4.2

-3.0

-5.2

-6.4

-5.9

-4.9

-4.8

-4.6

-3.9

-3.2

-3.2

-2.7

-2.2

-1.4

-1.1

-1.3

-3.1

-1.4

-1.0

+0.6

+0.8

+0.8

+0.6

+0.6

-0.3

+0.5

-0.1

+0.8

CHANGE

1,584

1,679

1,532

1,524

2,297

1,647

1,342

1,729

1,834

1,400

998

1,350

1,861

1,986

1,983

1,550

1,626

1,735

1,796

1,067

1,908

1,858

2,274

2,073

2,106

2,149

2,215

1,796

2,145

1,672

1,873

INFLOW

 1,085

 1,009

 1,017

 930

 870

 880

 880

 938

 941

 894

 850

 798

 825

 860

 873

 847

 825

 750

 767

 813

 769

 647

 460

 333

 310

 264

 239

 239

 239

 239

 240

MADERA

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 2,696

 2,577

 2,416

 2,465

 2,677

 3,119

 3,459

 3,476

 3,148

 2,672

 2,238

 2,256

 2,387

 2,479

 2,224

 1,589

 1,236

 1,284

 1,454

 1,580

 1,583

 1,459

 1,288

 1,082

 1,183

 1,347

 1,428

 1,456

 1,417

 1,228

 1,003

FRIANT-KERN

 58

 39

 43

 40

 33

 43

 32

 64

 32

 42

 39

 35

 39

 39

 50

 39

 50

 32

 42

 21

 31

 29

 33

 29

 28

 30

 38

 32

 39

 30

 42

C.F.S.

 .51

 .34

 .38

 .36

 .30

 .39

 .30

 .60

 .30

 .40

 .38

 .34

 .39

 .39

 .50

 .39

 .51

 .33

 .43

 .22

 .32

 .30

 .34

 .30

 .29

 .31

 .39

 .33

 .40

 .31

 .43

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2002 MILLERTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: September 23, 2002

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -72.6 54,589 21,631 61,906 0 1,173 11.48 .00

ACRE-FEET -72,560 108,277 42,905 122,791 0 2,327

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, PUMPING AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

CANALS

FRIANT-KERN

MADERA

 122,791

 42,905 178,511

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2002 TO DATE = 0.00

 298.3

 12,815 0.00

CANALS

AT FRIANT

TOTAL RELEASES

OUTLET

 216

 216

 216

 213

 221

 215

 206

 205

 203

 203

 208

 211

 210

 210

 208

 207

 207

 207

 207

 206

 206

 206

 206

 206

 206

 206

 206

 206

 206

 206

 206

RIVER

 6,461

 12,815

RIVER

Table 15
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          41,353
<SECURITIES>                                   169,605
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               228,179
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 228,179
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     227,179
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   228,179
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Rickert-Finlay Realty Company, Appellant, v. Illinois Surety Company, Respondent.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on the ground that the testimony as to statements by Mr. Mackay, in view of the evidence of his authority as defendant’s manager, raised a question of waiver for the jury; also that defendant’s return of Mr. King’s itemized statement of the expense of completion, without objection to its form, coupled with a denial of liability, waived defendant’s right afterwards to demand a more formal certificate by the architect. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
January 5, 2015 

Honorable John Cox 

Mayor 

City of Greenville 

340 Main Street 

Greenville, Mississippi 38701 

RE: Essential Air Service at Greenville, Mississippi 

Dear Mayor Cox: 

~ "} \ • ~ £.-

Regretfully, the purpose of this letter is to inform you that SeaPort Airlines must delay the start of 

scheduled service at Greenville, Mississippi (Mid-Delta Regional Airport) until further notice. 

As you are aware, we have been unsuccessful in our attempts to access the main terminal at 

Memphis International Airport at economic terms suitable for 9-passenger aircraft. While operations 

into our current private terminal at Memphis are possible, we do not believe that that this would be in 

the City's best interest nor represent the level of service presented in our proposal to provide EAS. 

Furthermore, if we were to start non-sterile service to Greenville, there is the risk of TSA permanently 

vacating the market. 

We will continue to work with Greenville to resolve this matter with in a reasonable amount of time. At 

some point in the near future, however, we believe a decision will need to be made with respect to 

requesting that US Department of Transportation request a new round of proposals. 

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

Best regards, 

Timothy F. Sieber 

Executive Vice President 

Hometown service. Worldwide connections. 7505 N[ Airport Way, Porthnd. Orc•gon 9721 R 

·.: .J 

R88-S7J.-27(,7 seaportairlint's.com
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1268

JOEY JURGENSEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL R. POMPEO, Secretary, U.S. Department of State, In his official 

capacity; CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

In his official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-01130-TSE-TCB)

Submitted: October 28, 2019 Decided: November 20, 2019

Before AGEE, FLOYD, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric S. Montalvo, Ricardo J.A. Pitts-Wiley, Astrid Lockwood, THE FEDERAL 

PRACTICE GROUP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 

Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Director, Timothy M. Belsan, Chief, Edward S. 

White, Senior Counsel, National Security & Affirmative Litigation Unit, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joey Jurgensen appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for attorneys’ 

fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (2012) because Jurgensen was not the prevailing 

party. We affirm. 

The district court’s decision to grant or deny reimbursement for attorneys’ fees is 

reviewed for abuse of discretion. Priestly v. Astrue, 651 F.3d 410, 415 (4th Cir. 2011). 

Whether a party is a prevailing party, however, is reviewed de novo. Goldstein v. Moatz, 

445 F.3d 747, 751 (4th Cir. 2006). We conclude that the district court properly found that 

Jurgensen was not a prevailing party entitled to attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jurgensen v. Pompeo, No. 1:17-cv-01130-

TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 21**

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF RYERSON TULL, INC.

 

The subsidiaries of Ryerson Tull, Inc. (other than certain subsidiaries which, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, do notconstitute a significant subsidiary), four of which are incorporated in the State of Delaware and one of which is incorporated in the State of Georgia, as noted below, and each of which is wholly owned by Ryerson Tull, Inc., are as follows:

 

Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. 

(a Delaware corporation) 

 

J. M. Tull Metals Company, Inc. 

(a Georgiacorporation) 

 

Ryerson Tull International, Inc. 

(a Delaware corporation) 

 

Ryerson Tull Procurement Corporation 

(aDelaware corporation)
### SUBCHAPTER IV—STUDENT ASSISTANCE
(No. 74-CC-405

#### Cord Moving and Storage, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent.

*Opinion filed February 28, 1974.*

*261Cord Moving and Storage, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) June 29, 2011
 Commission File Number of the issuing entity: 333-160604-01
 GE EQUIPMENT TRANSPORTATION LLC, SERIES 2011-1
 (Exact name of issuing entity)
 Commission File Number of depositor: 333-160604
 CEF EQUIPMENT HOLDING, L.L.C.
 (Exact name of depositor as specified in its charter)
 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION
 (exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)
 Delaware
    
    20-5439580(State or other jurisdiction 
of incorporation)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 10 Riverview Drive, Danbury, Connecticut
    
    06810(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (203) 749-2101
 
 Exhibit Index located on page 5
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
 o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 1.01
    
    Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
 Issuance of Notes
 Issuer Class A-1
Notes Class A-2
Notes Class A-3
Notes Class A-4
Notes Class A Notes Class B Notes Class C Notes Notes
 Use of Proceeds
 Registration
Statement
 VFS
   2 of 5




---



##### 



Item 9.01
    
    Financial Statements and Exhibits
      LLC Agreement
 GECC CEF Holding Loan Sale
Agreement
 Loan Purchase and Sale Agreement
 Servicing Agreement
 Indenture
 Administration Agreement
 Exhibit No.
    
    DescriptionExhibit 4 (b)
    
    LLC AgreementExhibit 4 (c)
    
    Loan Sale AgreementExhibit 4 (d)
    
    Loan Purchase and Sale AgreementExhibit 4 (e)
    
    Servicing AgreementExhibit 4 (f)
    
    IndentureExhibit 4 (g)
    
    Administration Agreement
 3 of 5




---



##### 



CEF EQUIPMENT HOLDING, L.L.C.By:
    /s/ Charles RhodesName:
    Charles RhodesTitle:
    Vice President and Secretary 4 of 5




---



##### 



Exhibit No.
    
    DescriptionExhibit 4 (b)
    
    LLC AgreementExhibit 4 (c)
    
    Loan Sale AgreementExhibit 4 (d)
    
    Loan Purchase and Sale AgreementExhibit 4 (e)
    
    Servicing AgreementExhibit 4 (f)
    
    IndentureExhibit 4 (g)
    
    Administration Agreement
 5 of 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Cornerstone Mortgage Investment Group, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          52,386
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,386
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          423,577
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            10
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (374,397)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,386
<SALES>                                         59,804
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,804
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 55,587
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             55,587
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,587
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear by T.D. ATF-463, 66 FR 42733, Aug. 15, 2001.

#### § 1.81 Importation of distilled spirits in bulk.

It is unlawful for any person to import distilled spirits in bulk, for nonindustrial use, except for sale to or for use by the classes of persons enumerated in §§ 1.82, 1.83 and 1.84.
Order entered July 2 6 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00771

- CV

ANDREA M. REYES, Appellant

V.

GUADALUPE TORRES AND ROSALINDA SILVA, Appellee

On Appeal fr om the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 13110



### O RDER

Before the Court is Daniel C. Perez’s July 16, 2019 agreed motion to withdraw as
counsel for appellant

. We GRANT the motion and DIRECT the Clerk of the Cou rt to remove
Mr. Perez as appellant’s counsel. All future communications with appellant shall be directed to
Andrea M. Reyes 14234 Heritage Cr., Bldg. C#103 Farmers Branch, Texas 75234.
We note that since the filing of the motion, the clerk’s record has been filed. The
reporter’s record remains due August 26, 2019.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
1

Jones, Keira (FAA)

From: Jones, Keira (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 1:38 PM

To: 'McCadden, Kevin K LT NSAWC HQ, N3'; Rosenbloom, Scott (FAA)

Subject: RE: Your Comment Submitted on Regulations.gov (ID: FAA-2001-8863-0018)

Kevin,

Thank you for the feedback.  This email will be posted to the Docket to show your clarification.

Keira R. Jones

ARM Program Analyst

Office of Rulemaking, ARM‐101

Work Phone:  (202) 267‐9677

Fax: (202) 267‐5075

“A mistake repeated more than once is a decision!”

                                                                             Paulo Coelho

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: McCadden, Kevin K LT NSAWC HQ, N3 [mailto:kevin.k.mccadden@navy.mil]  

Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 12:20 PM

To: Rosenbloom, Scott (FAA)

Cc: Jones, Keira (FAA)

Subject: RE: Your Comment Submitted on Regulations.gov (ID: FAA‐2001‐8863‐0018)

Scott,

Sorry for the confusion, we would like to continue the previous exemption for requirement of mode 3c in the FRTC

range.  I believe (not sure) that would fall under the previous exemption of § 91.215 (c), if this is not the correct rule for

mode 3c please let me know and I will find out some more details.  Thank you.

V/R,

Kevin

LT Kevin "Shed" McCadden

Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center

NSAWC N3 Operations DIVO

kevin.k.mccadden@navy.mil

kevin.mccadden@navy.smil.mil

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: Scott.Rosenbloom@faa.gov [mailto:Scott.Rosenbloom@faa.gov]  

Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 5:32 AM

To: McCadden, Kevin K LT NSAWC HQ, N3

Cc: Keira.Jones@faa.gov

Subject: RE: Your Comment Submitted on Regulations.gov (ID: FAA‐2001‐8863‐0018)
2

Kevin,  

The FAA Rulemaking office requires clarification of your request. In your petition you request exemption from § 91.215

(e), in the first para, and § 91.215 (3) in the second para. The previous exemption was for § 91.215 (c).  The FAA needs

clarification in writing for the administrative record.  

Please reply all with the clarification‐ Keira Jones (cc'd) is the Rulemaking guru working the exemption request.   

Thanks,  

Scott
### §4047. Prison impact assessments

(a) Any submission of legislation by the Judicial or Executive branch which could increase or decrease the number of persons incarcerated in Federal penal institutions shall be accompanied by a prison impact statement (as defined in subsection (b)).

(b) The Attorney General shall, in consultation with the Sentencing Commission and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, prepare and furnish prison impact assessments under subsection (c) of this section, and in response to requests from Congress for information relating to a pending measure or matter that might affect the number of defendants processed through the Federal criminal justice system. A prison impact assessment on pending legislation must be supplied within 21 days of any request. A prison impact assessment shall include—

(1) projections of the impact on prison, probation, and post prison supervision populations;

(2) an estimate of the fiscal impact of such population changes on Federal expenditures, including those for construction and operation of correctional facilities for the current fiscal year and 5 succeeding fiscal years;

(3) an analysis of any other significant factor affecting the cost of the measure and its impact on the operations of components of the criminal justice system; and

(4) a statement of the methodologies and assumptions utilized in preparing the assessment.

(c) The Attorney General shall prepare and transmit to the Congress, by March 1 of each year, a prison impact assessment reflecting the cumulative effect of all relevant changes in the law taking effect during the preceding calendar year.

(Added Pub. L. 103–322, title II, §20402(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1824.)