alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         8,139
<SECURITIES>                                   7,958
<RECEIVABLES>                                     18
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              16,363
<PP&E>                                         3,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                (2,540)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                17,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,596
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       76,715
<OTHER-SE>                                    (60,999)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,377
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                6,030
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,304)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,304)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,304)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.82)



</TABLE>
### §932a. Appointment of qualified individuals to hear and determine claims for benefits

Qualified individuals appointed by the Secretary of Labor may hear and determine claims for benefits under part B or part C of title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 1 [30 U.S.C. 921 et seq., 931 et seq.] and under section 415 of such Act [30 U.S.C. 925]. For purposes of this section, the term "qualified individual" means such an individual, regardless of whether that individual is a hearing examiner appointed under section 3105 of title 5. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to imply that there is or is not in effect any authority for such individuals to hear and determine such claims under any provision of law other than this section.

(Pub. L. 94–504, Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2428; Pub. L. 107–275, §2(b)(5), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1926.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 91–173, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 742, which was renamed the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 by Pub. L. 95–164, title I, §101, Nov. 9, 1977, 91 Stat. 1290. Parts B and C of title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 are classified generally to part B (§921 et seq.) of this subchapter and to this part (§931 et seq.), respectively. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 801 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 which comprises this chapter or the Black Lung Benefits Act which comprises this subchapter.

#### Amendments

2002—Pub. L. 107–275 substituted "under part B or part C" for "under part C".

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

#### Effective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–275 effective 90 days after Nov. 2, 2002, see section 4 of Pub. L. 107–275, set out as a note under section 902 of this title.

#### Extension of Adjudication Period Through March 1, 1979

Pub. L. 95–239, §7(i), Mar. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 100, authorized individuals appointed to hear and determine claims for benefits under this part and under section 925 of this title pursuant to this section, notwithstanding the provisions of section 932(a) of this title, to continue to adjudicate such claims during the one-year period following Mar. 1, 1978.

1 See References in Text note below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1998
<CASH>                                          10,921
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                       192
<INVENTORY>                                     32,493
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,334
<PP&E>                                          29,440
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,702
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,423
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,463
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,495
<SALES>                                         76,105
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,105
<CGS>                                           64,486
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,365
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 285
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,969
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,516
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,453
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,453
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 568 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 568

  To require the Secretary of Commerce to certify, before removing an 
 entity from the entity list, that the entity is no longer involved in 
    activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy 
 interests of the United States and that removing the entity from the 
      list does not pose a threat to allies of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 2021

  Mr. Scott of Florida (for himself, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Hawley, and Mr. 
Rubio) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
        to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Commerce to certify, before removing an 
 entity from the entity list, that the entity is no longer involved in 
    activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy 
 interests of the United States and that removing the entity from the 
      list does not pose a threat to allies of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Entity List Verification Act''.

SEC. 2. CERTIFICATION REQUIRED TO REMOVE ENTITIES FROM ENTITY LIST.

    The Secretary of Commerce may not remove any entity from the entity 
list maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security and set forth in 
Supplement No. 4 to part 744 of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations, 
until the Secretary certifies to Congress that--
            (1) the entity is no longer reasonably believed to be 
        involved, or to be becoming involved, in activities contrary to 
        national security or foreign policy interests of the United 
        States; and
            (2) removing the entity from the entity list does not pose 
        a threat to allies of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR MOTOR CARGO INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<PERIOD-TYPE>        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                    8,617
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            13,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                573
<INVENTORY>                                 503
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         26,965
<PP&E>                                   75,902
<DEPRECIATION>                           35,243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           68,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    11,597
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 12,101
<OTHER-SE>                               31,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             68,069
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        105,381
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            94,978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            221
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            220
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        1,051
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           9,573
<INCOME-TAX>                              3,805
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       5,768
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              5,768
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .95

</TABLE>
## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 18 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVE E. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-3427 (D.C. No. 96-3169-SAC) (District of Kansas)

ORDER

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
Steve E. Williams attempts to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In support of his request for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c), Mr. Williams argues that: (1) the government’s forfeiture of his property prohibited his subsequent criminal prosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause; (2) his punishment for money laundering resulted in multiple punishments for conspiracy in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause; and (3) his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary because it was provided in reliance on his attorney’s erroneous calculation of his maximum possible sentence. Mr. Williams’ first claim is precluded by United States v. Ursery , ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2135 (1996), in which the Supreme Court held that civil forfeitures do not- 2 -

constitute punishment for Double Jeopardy purposes. Id. at 2138. Mr. Williams’ second claim is precluded by Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299 (1932), because the government’s conspiracy charge did not require proof of financial transactions, while its money laundering charge did not require proof of conspiracy. See id. at 304 (multiple punishments for same offense do not occur if each charge requires proof of a fact that the other does not). Accord United States v. Dixon , 509 U.S. 688 (1993). Mr. Williams’ final claim is similarly without merit. Although constitutionally deficient performance by defense counsel may render a plea involuntary, “[a] miscalculation or erroneous sentence estimation by defense counsel is not a constitutionally deficient performance.” United States v. Gordon , 4 F.3d 1567, 1570 (10th Cir. 1993). Moreover, as set forth in the district court’s order denying § 2255 relief, Mr. Williams’ contention that he did not understand the possible penalties associated with his plea is belied by his discourse with the court at his plea hearing and the plea agreement itself. Having failed to present this court with issues that are debatable among jurists, Mr. Williams’ request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED and his appeal is DISMISSED . 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Lennox v. Evans , 87 F.3d 431 (10th Cir. 1996). The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
§ 1210.20 Effective date of a decision issued by an administrative judge; continuing jurisdiction over certain ancillary matters. ( a ) A decision by an administrative judge under this part will be effective upon issuance.
( b ) Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 713(e)(2), a decision by the administrative judge is not subject to further appeal.
( c ) A decision by the administrative judge is nonprecedential. Such a decision may be cited as persuasive authority only in an appeal filed pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 713(e)(2). Such a decision may not be cited in any appeal not filed pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 713(e)(2).
( d ) Following issuance of a decision by the administrative judge under this part, the MSPB retains jurisdiction over the appeal covered by this part for purposes of the following ancillary matters: ( 1 ) *Enforcement of decisions and orders.* The procedures set forth in subpart F of 5 CFR part 1201 are applicable to petitions for enforcement filed after the administrative judge issues a decision in an appeal filed under this part; and,
( 2 ) *Attorney fees, witness fees, litigation expenses, and damages.* The procedures set forth in subpart H of 5 CFR part 1201 (attorney fees, costs, expert witness fees, and litigation expenses, where applicable, and damages) are applicable to requests for fees and damages filed after the administrative judge issues a decision in an appeal filed under this part. (5 U.S.C. 7701(g)).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

LAWRENCE HARRIS, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 12-1577 (RC) 

 : 

 v. : Re Document No.: 5 

 : 

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

GRANTING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

This suit arises from the pro se plaintiff’s unsuccessful tryout for the Tulsa 66ers, a 

professional basketball franchise based in Oklahoma. The plaintiff initially brought suit in the 

Northern District of Oklahoma and litigated his case all the way to the United States Supreme 

Court. After the Supreme Court declined to hear his case, the plaintiff filed this suit to challenge 

the wisdom of the Justices’ decision. 

Of the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson once wrote: “We are not final because we are 

infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 

(1953) (Jackson, J., concurring). Following Justice Jackson’s maxim, this court lacks any power 

to review the Supreme Court’s actions. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per 

curiam) (concluding that the District Court had no authority to require the Supreme Court to hear 

the plaintiff’s (citing Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979) (“[I]t seems 

axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a higher court to take an 

action.”)); Brown v. U.S. Supreme Court, 2008 WL 5082141, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 2, 2008) (“This 

Court has no authority to determine what action, if any . . . must be taken by the Justices of the 

Supreme Court and the Supreme Court’s administrative officers with respect to plaintiff’s 
2

appeals.”). Accordingly, the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and 

the court will grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss. An order consistent with this 

memorandum opinion is separately issued this 23rd day of October, 2012. 

 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS 

United States District Judge
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-34 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, February 26, 1999)

EDITORS: This announcement corrects a press release on this subject issued

Tuesday, Feb. 23.

NRC PROPOSES CHANGES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS FOR

OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on a proposed

amendment to its regulations governing environmental reviews of applications for renewal of

nuclear power plant licenses.

The amendment to Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations would make

two changes:

(1) It would eliminate the requirement that a license renewal application address one

specific type of environmental impact caused by spent nuclear fuel generated by the plant after

its license is renewed -- the impact of hauling that fuel in the vicinity of a permanent high level

waste repository, such as the one proposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The amendment

also would account for the transportation environmental impacts caused by the use of fuel with

higher uranium enrichment and higher “burnup,” which provides more power production per

metric ton of fuel than has previously been the case.

(2) It would add a requirement that a license renewal application address the impact of

transportation on local services in the vicinity of the plant during the license renewal term. This

requirement was inadvertently omitted from the present rule.

Regarding the first change, new studies have given the NRC confidence that the

expected environmental impact of transporting spent fuel near a repository can be handled

generically -- that is, in a way that applies to the whole nuclear industry, rather than focusing on

a specific site. These new studies, which also deal with the use of more highly enriched fuel

and higher burnup fuel during the renewal term, are described in a draft supplemental

environmental impact statement which is also being issued for public comment. Because more

nuclear power plants are beginning to use fuel with higher enrichment and higher burnup, NRC

believes it likely that many plants seeking license renewal would be following that practice.

More details on both the proposed rule and the draft environmental impact statement

are included in a notice published in the February 26 edition of the Federal Register.

Comments, which are due no later than April 27, may be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, Mail Stop 016-C1. They may be delivered to: One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. 20852, between 7:30 a. m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

Comments also may be submitted to NRC’s interactive rulemaking web site through the NRC

home page at: http://www.nrc.gov.

###
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 04-075 June 15, 2004

NRC SEEKS TOPICS FOR UPCOMING

17TH ANNUAL REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking suggestions on what topics should be discussed

at the next Regulatory Information Conference, to be held March 8-10, 2005, at the Marriott Bethesda

North, 5701 Marinelli Road, Rockville, Maryland.

Conference topic ideas can be submitted electronically until September 5 on the NRC’s web

site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/conference-symposia/ric/ . Stakeholders can

select from a list of topics for the upcoming conference or make their own suggestions. NRC staff will

use this input in developing the RIC 2005 program agenda.

Persons interested in attending the conference will be able to register via the web address

above, beginning in December 2004. For additional information contact Sharon Bell at 301-415-1217,

Mary Glenn Crutchley at 301-415-2338, or e-mail RICHelpDesk@nrc.gov .

###
###### Editorial Note on [Part 141](/current/title-19/part-141?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 141 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, [81 FR 93019](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-93019), Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 141.105 Voluntary deposit of additional duties.

If either the importer of record or the actual owner whose declaration and superseding bond have been filed in accordance with [§ 141.20](/on/2024-09-10/title-19/section-141.20) desires, he may estimate, on the basis of information contained in the entry papers or obtainable from the Center director, the probable amount of unpaid duties which will be found due on the entire entry and deposit them in whole or in part with CBP, either at the port of entry or electronically. The deposit shall be tendered in writing in the following form in the number of copies required for the purposes of local administration, and an official receipt shall be given for the deposit:

Date \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

To CBP,

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

Tender is hereby voluntarily made of $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ as a supplemental deposit of estimated duties and taxes on \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ entry No. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, dated \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, in the name of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. Please provide an official receipt.

(Importer of record) or (actual owner)

(Street address)(City) (State)

[T.D. 73-175, [38 FR 17447](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/38-FR-17447), July 2, 1973, as amended by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, [81 FR 93019](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-93019), Dec. 20, 2016]
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT-23.1
------------

Consent of Independent Auditors




                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 18,
2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Teligent, Inc.
included in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 in the
Registration Statement Number 333-45005 on Form S-8, Registration Statement
Number 333-80469 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Number 333-93241 on Form
S-8.


                                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, Virginia
March 16, 2000