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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,466
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,322
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,119
<PP&E>                                         487,619
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 485,961
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,530
<BONDS>                                        220,017
<COMMON>                                           187
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     248,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   485,961
<SALES>                                         21,883
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,883
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,860
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,950
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,967
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,967
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,885
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cr−00110

Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan

Lynn S Loppnow, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, March 7, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Samuel Der−Yeghiayan as to Lynn S

Loppnow and Dean R. Loppnow: Status hearing held and continued to 05/14/13 at 9:00

a.m. In the interest of justice and for the reasons stated on the record, the Government's

request to exclude time through and including 05/14/13 is granted pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

3161(h)(7)(A)(B) without objection. Defendants personal appearances are hereby waived

for the 05/14/13 status hearing. Conditions of release previously set are to stand until

further order of the Court. Mailed notice (mw, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cr-00110 Document #: 30 Filed: 03/07/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:80
1809.105-2 Determinations and documentation. ( a ) The contracting officer shall provide written notification to a prospective contractor determined not responsible, which includes the basis for the determination. Notification provides the prospective contractor with the opportunity to take corrective action prior to future solicitations.
[76 FR 72328, Nov. 23, 2011]
### §1440g. Provision of information on military naturalization

#### (a) In general

Not later than 30 days after the effective date of any modification to a regulation related to naturalization under section 1439 or 1440 of this title, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall make appropriate updates to the Internet sites maintained by the Secretary to reflect such modification.

#### (b) Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Homeland Security, not later than 180 days after each effective date described in subsection (a), should make necessary updates to the appropriate application forms of the Department of Homeland Security.

(Pub. L. 110–251, §3, June 26, 2008, 122 Stat. 2320.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act, and not as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act which comprises this chapter.
No. 89-6885.

#### Stoner *v.*Kentucky.

Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.
#### Diana Sheean, Respondent v. Rudolph Allen, Appellant.

Order, entered on September 18, 1962 and resettled interlocutory judgment entered December 20, 1962, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by striking from the said judgment the last decretal paragraph and providing in lieu thereof for the appointment of a court-employed special referee to take and state the account, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. *Sua sponte,*we direct a joint accounting with *Sheean*v. *Allen*(19 A D 2d 595). There are no other issues of law or fact to be determined. It would appear that most of the items deal with ordinary living expenses and the account is not so long or detailed as to present difficulty in resolving it and consequently is not a long account within the purview of section 466 of the Civil Practice Act. (See *Brooklyn Public Lib.*v. *City of New York,*240 N. Y. 465.) It is the general policy of the courts in this Department not to extend the scope or occasion of references in the absence of consent of the parties or of special circumstances meriting such action. No special circumstances appear here. *(Matter of Wilder*v. *Straus-Duparquet,*5 A D 2d 1; *Wolfson*v. *McGraw é Co.,*18 A D 2d 905.) In addition, both parties object to the private reference. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<CIK> 0000318819
<NAME> W. TIMOTHY POHL
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    4,939,408
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    145,080
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         278,681
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       332,320
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 256,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,952,206
<COMMON>                                       117,930
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      423,378
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,001,029
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,634,798
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           74,020
<PREFERRED>                                     19,791
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         2,393,097
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             239,864
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   38,355
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,552,281
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                5,952,206
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,260,857
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            91,400
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     841,263
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     932,663
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        328,194
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                            (11,030)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 317,164
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       178,215
<NET-INCOME>                                   138,949
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      3,984
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  134,965
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        79,370
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      174,461
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         329,392
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.40


</TABLE>
#### 1532.908 Contract clauses.

The Contracting Officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as that at 1552.232-70 in all solicitations and contracts for cost reimbursable acquisitions. If a non-commercial time and materials type contract is contemplated, the Contracting Officer shall use the clause with its Alternate I.

[61 FR 29317, June 10, 1996, as amended at 81 FR 31528, May 19, 2016]
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 796 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 796

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the exclusion for 
employer-provided education assistance to employer payments of student 
                                 loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 30, 2017

   Mr. Warner (for himself, Mr. Thune, and Mr. King) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the exclusion for 
employer-provided education assistance to employer payments of student 
                                 loans.

    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 ``Employer Participation in Repayment 
Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYER PAYMENTS OF STUDENT LOANS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 127(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
subparagraph (A), by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph 
(C), and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(B) the payment by an employer, whether paid to 
                the employee or to a lender, of principal or interest 
                on any qualified education loan (as defined in section 
                221(d)(1)) incurred by the employee, and''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment; Denial of Double Benefit.--Paragraph (1) 
of section 221(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
inserting before the period the following: ``, or for which an 
exclusion is allowable under section 127 to the taxpayer's employer by 
reason of the payment by such employer of any indebtedness on a 
qualified education loan of the taxpayer''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to payments made after December 31, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3444

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Tremayne McFadden, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 4, 2009

Filed: August 14, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tremayne McFadden appeals the district court’s1

 order denying his postjudgment motion for a sentence reduction. In 2006 McFadden pleaded guilty to a

drug offense and, at his sentencing hearing in 2007, the district court calculated an

advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 108-135 months. The court sentenced

McFadden to 72 months in prison. McFadden did not appeal. In 2008 he moved to

reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Guidelines amendments

that retroactively reduced base-offense-level calculations for crack cocaine offenses.
-2-

The district court agreed that the amendments lowered McFadden’s Guidelines range

to 87-108 months, but the court chose not to reduce the 72-month sentence.

We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

McFadden’s motion. See United States v. Whiting, 522 F.3d 845, 852 (8th Cir. 2008)

(district court has discretionary authority under § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10

to reduce sentence based on subsequently lowered Guidelines range). The court

calculated the amended Guidelines range and determined that the original 72-month

prison term--which was below the amended range--was an appropriate sentence. See

id. at 852-53 (when exercising its discretion, district court must calculate amended

range, determine what sentence it would have imposed had new range been in effect

at original sentencing, and decide whether or not to modify sentence previously

imposed). Because McFadden’s original sentence was below his then-applicable

Guidelines range, the district court had authority to resentence him to a term

comparably lower than the amended Guidelines range, but the court was not obligated

to do so. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (court “may reduce” prison term); U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (comparable reduction “may be appropriate”). McFadden’s other

arguments do not provide grounds for reversal. See United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d

1190, 1193 (11th Cir.) (proceeding under § 3582(c)(2) is not full resentencing

hearing), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2382 (2009); United States v. Prince, No. 08-2994,

2009 WL 1383683, at *1 (8th Cir. 2009) (unpublished per curiam) (same); United

States v. Hasan, 245 F.3d 682, 685-90 (8th Cir. 2001) (post-sentencing conduct is

irrelevant to district court’s determination, in § 3582(c) proceedings, of what sentence

it would have imposed at original sentencing).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

______________________________
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 715 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to release on behalf of the United 

States the condition that certain lands conveyed to the City of Old 

Town, Maine, be used for a municipal airport, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 23, 2017 

Mr. KING (for himself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

and Forestry 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to release on behalf 

of the United States the condition that certain lands 

conveyed to the City of Old Town, Maine, be used for 

a municipal airport, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Removing Outdated 

5 Restrictions to Allow for Job Growth Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST. 

7 (a) RELEASE.—Notwithstanding section 32(c) of the 

8 Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1011(c)), if 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 715 IS

1 the City of Old Town, Maine, makes a written request to 

2 the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary shall release, 

3 convey, and quitclaim, without monetary consideration, all 

4 rights, title, and interest of the United States in and to 

5 the lands specified in subsection (b). 

6 (b) LANDS SPECIFIED.—The lands subject to sub7 section (a) include only the lands— 

8 (1) conveyed by the United States to the City 

9 of Old Town, Maine, under section 32(c) of the 

10 Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 

11 1011(c)) by the deed dated June 5, 1941; 

12 (2) proposed for conveyance by the City of Old 

13 Town, Maine, for the purpose of economic develop14 ment; and 

15 (3) described in the written request submitted 

16 by the City of Old Town, Maine, to the Secretary of 

17 Agriculture pursuant to subsection (a). 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nicholas A. Kamisaroff, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Orange County, dated August 8, 1961, which denied, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court rendered July 24, 1941 after a jury trial, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree, and imposing sentence. Order affirmed. Ho opinion. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Thomas Puma, Respondent, v. New York Dock Company et al., Appellants.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal of New York Dock Company denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### 1308.802-70 Printing.

Insert clause 1352.208-70, *Restrictions on Printing and Duplicating,* in all solicitations and contracts when printing documents may be required in the performance of the contract.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

89–011 2001

107th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – –House Document 107–22

CERTIFICATION FOR AN EXPORT TO THE PEOPLE’S

REPUBLIC OF CHINA

COMMUNICATION

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

HIS CERTIFICATION THAT THE EXPORT TO THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA OF A BEAM CENTERLINE (LINEAR ACCELERATOR), IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION

1512 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

JANUARY 20, 2001.—Referred to the Committee on International Relations

and ordered to be printed

(1)

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, January 11, 2001.

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with the provisions of section

1512 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1999 (Public Law 105–261), I hereby certify that the export to the

People’s Republic of China of a beam centerline (linear accelerator):

(1) Is not detrimental to the United States space launch industry; and

(2) The material and equipment, including any indirect technical benefit that could be derived from such export, will not

measurably improve the missile or space launch capabilities of

the People’s Republic of China.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7174

In Re: VINCENT EUGENE LINEBERGER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-103-3)

Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 14, 2000

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Eugene Lineberger, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Eugene Lineberger petitions this court for a writ of

mandamus directing the district court to act upon his petition

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). The district court

entered a final order on September 5, 2000, denying relief on

Lineberger’s habeas petition. Accordingly, we grant Lineberger

leave to proceed in forma pauperis but deny the mandamus petition

as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           8,439
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,745,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,231,938
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,310,202
<PP&E>                                       2,014,016
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,040,628)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,360,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,435,456
<BONDS>                                        914,237
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,350
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,658,267
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,360,834
<SALES>                                      9,388,505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,388,505
<CGS>                                        6,415,161
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,415,161
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,086
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             152,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                763,440
<INCOME-TAX>                                   260,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            503,440
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   503,440
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        

</TABLE>
No. 88-6684.

#### Hunt *v.*North Carolina.

Sup. Ct. N. C. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *McKoy*v. *North Carolina, ante,*p. 433.
- wi-uwmadison-1-comp
- '05242185 Recipient Notification Letter' of '24-01068-F Chicago'
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Dynamic Materials Corporation (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard A. Santa,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i)                                     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

July 27, 2007
|        | /s/ Richard A. Santa                       |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Richard A. Santa                           |   |
|   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | of Dynamic Materials Corporation           |   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Dynamic Materials Corporation and will be retained by DynamicMaterials Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

** **

----