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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2577 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2577

             To suspend temporarily the duty on Indoxacarb.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2005

  Mr. Bonner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To suspend temporarily the duty on Indoxacarb.

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

SECTION 1. INDOXACARB.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.07.46       Methyl (4aS)-7-    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         chloro-2,5-                                                        31/2009
                         dihydro-2-
                         [[(methoxycarbony
                         l)[4-
                         (trifluoromethoxy
                         )phe
                         nyl]amino]carbony
                         l] indeno[1,2-
                         e][1,3,4]oxadiazi
                         ne-4a(3H)-
                         carboxylate(Indox
                         acarb) (CAS No.
                         144171-61-9)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2934.99.16)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### James WHITAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 81-1255.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued April 12, 1982.

Decided June 17, 1982.

*1121David W. Sinclair, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.

Richard A. Rossman, U. S. Atty., Mark R. Werder, Asst. U. S. Atty., Ellen Christensen, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellee.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, MARTIN, Circuit Judge, and TUTTLE,* Senior Circuit Judge.

*

 Honorable Elbert P. Tuttle, Senior Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

On receipt and consideration of plaintiffs appeal of denial of disability benefits, we find from the record support for the Secretary’s conclusion that the several physical problems from which plaintiff was suffering are not such as to deprive him of substantial capacity to perform sedentary work.

This case was remanded by the District Court for the Secretary to give further consideration to plaintiff’s mental and emotional impairments. The record adduced at the second hearing, as a result of psychiatric or psychologic examinations, was considered by the Administrative Law Judge to warrant the conclusion that plaintiff was not disabled and could engage in a range of sedentary activity.

On review of the record, we find substantial evidence to support the conclusion above as adopted by the Secretary and the District Court. Dr. Al-Najjar’s report constitutes substantial evidence in this regard.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paula Jean FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-20461

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 20, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Paula Jean Fields appeals following her guilty-plea convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count One) and for being a felon in possession of ammunition (Count Two), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2).

Fields argues that her convictions on the above counts are multiplicitous and that they violate the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. She contends that her conviction for Count Two should *293be vacated and the case remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss that count. The Government concedes the error and agrees that the conviction on Count Two should be vacated.

Simultaneous convictions and sentences for the same criminal act involving possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition violate double jeopardy. *See United States v. Berry,*977 F.2d 915, 919 (5th Cir.1992). Accordingly, we vacate Fields’s conviction on Count Two and remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss that count. *See Ball v. United States,*470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985). Fields’s conviction on Count One is affirmed.

Fields argues that § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional because it does not require a substantial affect on interstate commerce. She also contends that the mere fact that a firearm or ammunition traveled across state lines in the past is legally insufficient to satisfy § 922(g)(l)’s interstate commerce requirement. Fields acknowledges that these arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent, but she raises them to preserve them for further review.

This court has repeatedly held that “ ‘the constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to question.’ ” *United States v. Daugherty,*264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting *United States v. DeLeon,*170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.1999)). This court has also held that evidence that a *weapon was*manufactured in one state and possessed in another is sufficient to sustain a conviction under § 922(g). *United States v. Pierson,*139 F.3d 501, 504 (5th Cir.1998); *United States v. Rawls,*85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir.1996). Accordingly, Fields’s arguments are foreclosed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

*

 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.
M r. Thomas Ronnau

Manager Technical Services

Cessna Aircraft Company

P.O. Box 7706

Wichita, KS 67277

Dear Ronnau :

We have received your February 26

, 2014 correspondence submitted to the Federal Docket

withd rawing your February 7

, 2013 petition on behalf of Cessna Aircraft Company for an

exemption from § 91.409(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

Your letter has been placed in the p ublic docket No. FAA

- 2001

- 8741 . No further action will

be taken on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda D. Courtney

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUGLAS R. CARAWAY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-04371-MMC 

ORDER RE: LETTER FROM 

DEFENDANT DOUGLAS CARAWAY

The Court is in receipt of a letter, filed May 13, 2016, in which defendant Douglas 

Caraway (“Caraway”) requests a Court order. Pursuant to the Local Rules of this district, 

however, “[a]ny written request to the Court for an order” must be presented by motion or 

stipulation. See Civil L.R. 7-1(a).

Moreover, the letter was written by an attorney who has not appeared as counsel 

of record for Caraway. 

Accordingly, the Court takes no further action on the above-referenced request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04371-MMC Document 171 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 1
#### § 519.405 Penalty procedures.

Agencies shall impose and collect civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. sections 3803 (except subsection (c)), 3804, 3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, and 3812, insofar as these provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements herein.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Helen B. Dwyer, Deceased. Kurt Schmieder, Appellant; Louis H. Hall, Jr., as Executor of Helen B. Dwyer, Deceased, Respondent.

Order of the Surrogate’s Court, New York County, entered June 1, 1976, denying the petition to compel an accounting, unanimously affirmed,' without costs and without disbursements. The petitioner is a national of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). Many years ago, desirous of avoiding decrees of the National Socialist Party with respect to assets abroad, the petitioner and his sister-in-law sought to divest themselves of such assets in the United States by making an absolute gift to a person in the United States who was the secretary to an attorney who advised the petitioner. Petitioner now seeks an accounting by the executor of the donee’s estate. Petitioner has thus far been unsuccessful with respect to his claim. (See *Schmieder v Hall,*421 F Supp 1208, affd 545 F2d 768, and a petition for certiorari is pending.) In order for the petitioner to be entitled to an accounting, he must in this instance show that he is a creditor (SCPA 103, subd 11). He bottoms his position as a creditor on the basis that a claim has been made against him by the United States for gift taxes in connection with the above-mentioned transaction. At the argument of this appeal, the respondent submitted an affidavit with official documents to the effect that the Internal Revenue Service has released any Federal tax lien. "For the *773purpose of sustaining a judgment, incontrovertible, documentary evidence dehors the appeal record may be received by an appellate court”. *(Kirp v Caleb’s Path Realty Corp.,*19 AD2d 744, 745.) The documentary evidence is received, and based thereon, the order is affirmed. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27711]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Approved Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes an Approval of the Amendment to the 
Tribal-State Compact between the Flandreau Santee Sioux Executive 
Committee and the State of South Dakota.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming Management, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary-
Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. This Amendment allows for the 
expansion of the Tribe's simulcast operation to provide for runners.

    Dated: December 6, 2004.
Michael D. Olsen,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 04-27711 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2670

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the amounts reimbursed 

to institutional providers of health care services under the TRICARE 

program to be the same as amounts reimbursed under Medicare, and 

to require the Secretary of Defense to contract for health care services 

with at least one teaching hospital in urban areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the 

amounts reimbursed to institutional providers of health 

care services under the TRICARE program to be the 

same as amounts reimbursed under Medicare, and to 

require the Secretary of Defense to contract for health 

care services with at least one teaching hospital in urban 

areas.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2670 IH 

1 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR TRICARE PROGRAM REIM2 BURSEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL PROVIDERS 

3 OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO BE IDEN4 TICAL TO REIMBURSEMENT UNDER MEDI5 CARE. 

6 Section 1079(j)(2) of title 10, United States Code, 

7 is amended by striking ‘‘determined to the extent prac8 ticable in accordance with the same reimbursement rules 

9 as apply to payments to’’ and inserting ‘‘identical to the 

10 amount of payments that would be paid to’’. 

11 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR TRICARE PROGRAM TO CON12 TRACT WITH AT LEAST ONE TEACHING HOS13 PITAL IN URBAN AREAS FOR DELIVERY OF 

14 HEALTH CARE. 

15 Section 1097(a) of title 10, United States Code, is 

16 amendedl

17 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘The Secretary of 

18 Defense’’; 

19 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘The’’ 

20 and inserting ‘‘Subject to paragraph (2), the’’; 

21 (3) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), 

22 and (4) as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D), re23 spectively; and 

24 (4) by adding at the end the following new 

25 paragraph: 
3

•HR 2670 IH 

1 ‘‘(2) In contracting for the delivery of health care 

2 under this section, the Secretary shall contract with at 

3 least one teaching hospital in each large urban area. In 

4 this paragraph—

5 ‘‘(A) the term ‘teaching hospital’ means a hos6 pital which has a teaching program approved as 

7 specified in section 1861(b)(6) of the Social Security 

8 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(b)(6)); and 

9 ‘‘(B) the term ‘large urban area’ has the mean10 ing given that term in the second sentence of section 

11 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

12 1395ww(d)(2)(D)).’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerard Hamill, Also Known as Gerard Hammill, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 2, 1974, affirmed (see *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Hopkins, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.
### §3743. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3743 was editorially reclassified as section 20143 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

#### Prior Provisions

For prior sections 3743 of this title, see note set out preceding section 3741 of this title.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

PAM AHLIN (Acting) Executive

Director of Coalinga State Hospital; 

Respondent. /

No. C 08-1088 SI (pr)

JUDGMENT

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

DATED: April 27, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01088-SI Document 19 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 1
### §3609. Education and conciliation; conferences and consultations; reports

Immediately after April 11, 1968, the Secretary shall commence such educational and conciliatory activities as in his judgment will further the purposes of this subchapter. He shall call conferences of persons in the housing industry and other interested parties to acquaint them with the provisions of this subchapter and his suggested means of implementing it, and shall endeavor with their advice to work out programs of voluntary compliance and of enforcement. He may pay per diem, travel, and transportation expenses for persons attending such conferences as provided in section 5703 of title 5. He shall consult with State and local officials and other interested parties to learn the extent, if any, to which housing discrimination exists in their State or locality, and whether and how State or local enforcement programs might be utilized to combat such discrimination in connection with or in place of, the Secretary's enforcement of this subchapter. The Secretary shall issue reports on such conferences and consultations as he deems appropriate.

(Pub. L. 90–284, title VIII, §809, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 85.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000                          
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         45,700
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  43,278
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    7,269
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               97,898
<PP&E>                                         1,027,192
<DEPRECIATION>                                 27,265
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,161,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          444,260
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       352
<OTHER-SE>                                     410,134
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,161,100
<SALES>                                        52,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               52,715
<CGS>                                          30,982
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  30,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               31,116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             10,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (20,046)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (20,046)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20,046)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.57)
        



</TABLE>
### §3020a. Application of other laws; costs of projects under this chapter not treated as income or benefits under other laws

(a) The provisions and requirements of chapter 71 of title 31 shall not apply to the administration of the provisions of this chapter or to the administration of any program or activity under this chapter.

(b) No part of the costs of any project under any subchapter of this chapter may be treated as income or benefits to any eligible individual (other than any wage or salary to such individual) for the purpose of any other program or provision of Federal or State law.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title II, §210, formerly §211, as added Pub. L. 94–135, title I, §102, Nov. 28, 1975, 89 Stat. 713; amended Pub. L. 95–478, title I, §102(h), Oct. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 1515; renumbered §210 and amended Pub. L. 97–115, §2(e)(2), (j), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1596.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In subsec. (a), "chapter 71 of title 31" substituted for "the Act of December 5, 1974 (Public Law 93–510; 88 Stat. 1604) [42 U.S.C. 4251 et seq.]" on authority of Pub. L. 97–258, §4(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1067, the first section of which enacted Title 31, Money and Finance.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 210 of Pub. L. 89–73 was renumbered section 209 and is classified to section 3020 of this title.

#### Amendments

1981—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–115, §(2)(j), struck out "and section 1469a of title 48" after "chapter 52A of this chapter".

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–478, §102(h)(1), (2), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and provided for nonapplication of provisions relating to Congressional declaration of policy respecting "Insular Areas".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–478, §102(h)(1), added subsec. (b).

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

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–478 effective at close of Sept. 30, 1978, see section 504 of Pub. L. 95–478, set out as a note under section 3001 of this title.
### §3796cc–3. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796cc–3 was editorially reclassified as section 10364 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
Exhibit 10.11

ADDENDUM TO EXECUTIVE TERMINATION BENEFITS AGREEMENTS

---





| |  | Dated: [insert date]       |  |                                                                                        
| |  | -------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION |  |                                                                                        
| |  | By                         |  | James F. Brashear
Corporate Secretary                                                  
| |  | SABRE INC.                 |  |                                                                                        
| |  | By                         |  | James F. Brashear
Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
| |  | [Executive]                |  |                                                                                        

| |  | Signed: |  |  |  | 
| |  | ------- |  |  |  | 

2

---



QuickLinks
§ 504.14 Fees. ( a ) *Generally.* The General Counsel may condition the production of records or appearance for testimony upon advance payment of a reasonable estimate of the costs to the BBG.
( b ) *Fees for records.* Fees for producing records will include fees for searching, reviewing, and duplicating records, costs of attorney time spent in reviewing the request, and expenses generated by materials and equipment used to search for, produce, and copy the responsive information. Costs for employee time will be calculated on the basis of the hourly pay of the employee (including all pay, allowances, and benefits). Fees for duplication will be the same as those charged by the BBG in its Freedom of Information Act regulations at 22 CFR Part 503.
( c ) *Witness fees.* Fees for attendance by a witness will include fees, expenses, and allowances prescribed by the court's rules. If no such fees are prescribed, witness fees will be determined based upon the rule of the Federal district court closest to the location where the witness will appear and on 28 U.S.C. 1821, as applicable. Such fees will include cost of time spent by the witness to prepare for testimony, in travel and for attendance in the legal proceeding, plus travel costs.
( d ) *Payment of fees.* A requester must pay witness fees for current BBG employees and any record certification fees by submitting to the General Counsel a check or money order for the appropriate amount made payable to the Treasury of the United States. In the case of testimony of former BBG employees, the requester must pay applicable fees directly to the former BBG employee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1821 or other applicable statutes.
( e ) *Waiver or reduction of fees.* The General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, may, upon a showing of reasonable cause, waive or reduce any fees in connection with the testimony, production, or certification of records.
( f ) *De minimis fees.* Fees will not be assessed if the total charge would be $10.00 or less.