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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 915 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government 

pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 24, 2017 

Mr. BROWN (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. 

HELLER, and Mrs. MCCASKILL) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the 

Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. 

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 ‘‘Social Security Fair5 ness Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 915 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET PROVI2 SION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 202(k) of the Social Secu4 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)) is amended by striking para5 graph (5). 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

7 (1) Section 202(b)(2) of the Social Security Act 

8 (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘sub9 sections (k)(5) and (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

10 (q)’’. 

11 (2) Section 202(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

12 402(c)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsections 

13 (k)(5) and (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (q)’’. 

14 (3) Section 202(e)(2)(A) of such Act (42 

15 U.S.C. 402(e)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘sub16 section (k)(5), subsection (q),’’ and inserting ‘‘sub17 section (q)’’. 

18 (4) Section 202(f)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

19 402(f)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsection 

20 (k)(5), subsection (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection 

21 (q)’’. 

22 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISIONS. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 215 of the Social Security 

24 Act (42 U.S.C. 415) is amended— 

25 (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7); 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 915 IS

1 (2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3); 

2 and 

3 (3) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (9). 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Subsections (e)(2) 

5 and (f)(2) of section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402) are 

6 each amended by striking ‘‘section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6), 

7 or 215(f)(9)(B)’’ in subparagraphs (C) and (D)(i) and in8 serting ‘‘paragraph (5) or (6) of section 215(f)’’. 

9 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

10 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

11 respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title 

12 II of the Social Security Act for months after December 

13 2017. Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Secu14 rity Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust 

15 primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary to take 

16 into account the amendments made by section 3. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### 1303.101 Standards of conduct.
#### In the Matter of Michael Kane, Respondent, v. New York State Department of Correction et al., Appellants.

Hamm, J.

The respondent’s petition at Special Term alleged that the respondent after trial was convicted of a felony, that before sentence was imposed he was committed to Matteawan State Hospital, that he was thereafter released pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus, returned to the court in which his conviction took place and sentenced “to serve, seven (7) years”. He seeks a judgment requiring the appellants to compute his sentence with allowance for alleged reduction of sentence earned by him pursuant to section 230 of the Correction Law and creditable to him pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 2193 of the Penal Law, asserting that on a proper computation his sentence has expired. The appellants objected in point of law: “ The petitioner herein has not legal capacity to sue in that his civil rights have been suspended pursuant to Section 510 of the Penal Law ” and moved for dismissal of the petition “ upon the above grounds ”. No issue was raised as to the sufficiency of the petition, the only objection interposed was the objection quoted. Special Term dismissed the objection in point of law but then proceeded to the merits and ordered “that the respondent herein recompute the maximum expiration date of the term of the petitioner by taking into consideration the time spent by the petitioner in the Matteawan' State Hospital and compute any discretionary reduction of the maximum term provided for under the provisions of Article 9 of the Correction Law based upon the time the petitioner spent in Matteawan State Hospital as well as in the State correctional institution.” The respondent’s petition was sworn to September 13, 1963, and the order to show cause by which the proceeding was brought on was subscribed September *92017, 1963. CPLR 7804 (subd. [£]) provides: “ The respondent may raise an objection in point of law by setting it forth in his answer or by a motion to dismiss the petition, made upon notice within the time allowed for answer. If the motion is denied, the court shall permit the respondent to answer, upon such terms as may be just”. Even under the former procedure under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act it was well settled that leave to serve an answer should be refused only if it clearly appeared that no issue existed which might be raised by answer concerning the merits of the petitioner’s application *(Matter of Davlee Constr. Corp.*v. *Town of Huntington,*16 A D 2d 974). Judgment modified by deletion of all that appears after “ ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the objections in point of law submitted herein on behalf of the respondents [the appellants here] be, and the same hereby are, disallowed ” and by the addition of *“*and' the respondents may file and serve an answer within five days after entry of the order hereon ” and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The Attorney-General will submit order to the Clerk without delay. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Aulisi, JJ., concur.
This survey was conducted by three distance learning and education innovation organization (UPCEA, OLC, and WCET) during the week of February 4, 2019. Thank you to Julie Uranis, UPCEA, for spearheading the survey. Eighty-two responses from different types of institutions were received. Responses were made anonymous.

**Key Takeaways**

In reviewing the institutional “regular and substantive interaction” (RSI) language from the table below and the responses to the questions in the charts on the previous page, the following themes are noted:

· Even after decades of implementing this requirement there is still confusion over what constitutes “regular and substantive interaction.” This is despite on-going efforts by the three organizations conducting this survey to educate members about it. 

· “Interaction” was often defined as going beyond instructor-initiated contacts to include student-initiated and student-to-student interaction. Presumably, this is based upon experience indicating the importance of these connections in educational quality.

· Who is counted in the “instructional team” for compliance purposes is unclear. One institution reported that G.A.s and T.A.s are included, while another reported that they are not. 

**Methodology and Assumptions**

The following table lists the definitions and/or talking points used by institutions that responded to the survey (82) that was sent out generally to members of the three organizations. Please note:

· No verification or validation of responses was conducted to determine if the individual responding to the survey could speak with authority on the institution’s practices in regards to RSI.

· The absence or existence of a definition or talking points shared in this survey does not necessarily indicate that an institution does or does not adhere to federal financial aid guidelines and regulations.

· At some institutions, teaching and RSI may be a question of academic freedom and handled on a case by case (or course by course) basis.

· The absence of an institutional definition does not suggest that an institution is not focused on quality online experiences.

**Regular and Substantive Interaction A Survey by UPCEA, OLC, and WCET – February 2019**

4

# image2.png

# image3.JPG

# image4.png

# image1.png
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           38875
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6424
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 45300
<PP&E>                                         2659404
<DEPRECIATION>                                   23953
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2888876
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2634257
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         37035
<OTHER-SE>                                      217584
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2888876
<SALES>                                          24129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                183616
<CGS>                                             5107
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   126916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                147534
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (82051)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (82051)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (82051)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
Addendum to the

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT:

PROPOSED REGULATION FOR IN-USE ON-ROAD DIESEL VEHIC LES (ARB, October 2008)

The following references are added to the chapters and appendices in the Technical Support Document: Proposed Regulation for In-Use On -Road Diesel Vehicles:

Chapter XVI. RATIONALE FOR REGULATORY PROVISIONS AN D CHANGES TO

OTHER REGULATIONS In section J, School Buses, general concepts regard ing children’s exposure to diesel emissions from school buses were discusses but the

reference was omitted and is added below:

Berhrentz, 2005. Berhrentz, E., Sabin, L., Winer, A ., Fritz, D., Pankratz, D., Colume, S. and S. Fruin, 2005, Relative Importa nce of School BusRelated Microenvironments to Children’s Pollutant E xposure. Journal of Air & Waste Management Association., p. 1418 – 1430

.

Chapter XIII. COST SUMMARY AND METHODOLOGY and Chapter XIV. ECONOMIC IMPACTS and Appendix J. COST AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

The terms “cost model” and “ARB On-Road Compliance Model” were used in numerous places throughout Chapter XIII and Chapter XIV. The term is explained in detail in Appendix J, but the model was not referenced. The following reference needs to be ad ded to each chapter:

ARB Model, 2008. On-Road Capital Cost Model, Air Re sources Board www.arb.ca.gov/dieseltruck.

Chapter XIII. COST SUMMARY AND METHODOLOGY

Section B. 2. a) discussed the data on vehicle pric es that were downloaded from www.truckpaper.com. The reference, Truckpaper.com, was discussed, however, the proper citation was not included in the paragraph or in the list of referen ces. The proper reference is the following:

Truckpaper.com, 2008b. www.truckpaper.comPage 2

Chapter XIV. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

In Section C. 1. e), references to the 2008 Land Li ne Reader Survey were made, but not cited. The reference below was omitted and is being

added:

Land Line, 2008. 2008 Land Line Reader Survey, Owne r-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), February 2 008,

www.ooida.com

Chapter XIII. COST SUMMARY AND METHODOLOGY

In Section B. 2. a), references to the National Aut omobile Dealers Association were made, but the reference was omitte d and is being

added.

NADA, 2008. NADA Guides, Vehicle Pricing & Informat ion TM

, www.nada.org

Appendix J. COST AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Figure 13 in Chapter A., section7, was created usin g maintenance costs from an individual fleet requesting confidentiality but the reference was omitted and is being added below:

Operating Cost, 2008. Truck Maintenance and Repair Costs from

unnamed source.

Appendix J. COST AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Table 20 and Table 21 were created using individual body transfer costs obtained through personal conversations with severa l people but the reference was omitted and is being added.

Body Transfer Cost, 2008. Personal communications.
1204.903 Reporting contract information to the IRS. ( a ) The SPE is authorized to report certain information, including Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) data, to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Flava Works, Inc., )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 1:12-cv-01885

)

v. )

) Hon. Judge Joan H. Lefkow

Frank Rossi, )

)

Defendant. )

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY

NOW COMES the undersigned attorneys of record for Defendant, Frank Rossi, and prays this 

Court to enter its order granting the undersigned attorneys leave to withdraw as counsel. As 

grounds for the withdrawal the undersigned attorneys’ state:

1. Circumstances have arisen which make it difficult for the undersigned attorneys to continue in 

the representation of the defendant.

2. Due to these circumstances which have arisen between the undersigned attorneys and their

client, the undersigned attorneys will be unable to effectively and properly continue representing 

the defendant herein.

WHEREFORE, upon hearing hereof, the undersigned prays that this Court enter its order 

allowing withdrawal herein.

/s/ Daliah Saper

/s/ Chris McElwain

Attorney for Defendants

Dated: August 8, 2013

Daliah Saper, Esq.

Saper Law Offices, LLC

505 N. LaSalle, Suite 350

Chicago, Illnois 60654

(312) 527-4100

IL ARDC No.: 6283932

dsaper@saperlaw.com

Case: 1:12-cv-01885 Document #: 39 Filed: 08/08/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:348
2101.301 Policy. ( a ) Procedures, contract clauses, and other aspects of the acquisition process for contracts in the FEGLI Program shall be consistent with the principles of the FAR. Changes to the FAR that are otherwise authorized by statute or applicable regulation, dictated by the practical realities associated with certain unique aspects of life insurance, or necessary to satisfy specific needs of the Office of Personnel Management, to the extent not otherwise regulated in the FAR, shall be implemented as amendments to the LIFAR and published in the Federal Register, or as deviations to the FAR in accordance with FAR subpart 1.4.
( b ) OPM may issue internal procedures, instructions, directives, and guides to clarify or implement the LIFAR within OPM. Clarifying or implementing procedures, instructions, directives, and guides issued pursuant to this section of the LIFAR must: ( 1 ) Be consistent with the policies and procedures contained in this chapter as implemented and supplemented from time to time; and
( 2 ) Follow the format, arrangement, and numbering system of this chapter to the extent practicable.
[58 FR 40372, July 28, 1993, as amended at 70 FR 41149, July 18, 2005]
Exhibit 32.2





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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB (the "Report") of Colorado Wyoming Reserve Company (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2005, Rafiq A. Sayed, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date:  September 26, 2005

/s/ Rafiq A. Sayed



Rafiq A. Sayed



Chief Financial Officer
#### Clarence J. Williams, Individually and as Executor of Mary H. Williams, Deceased, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Motion No. M-7404.)

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: The record herein presents no “ reasonable excuse for the failure to file the notice of intention” within the meaning of subdivision 5 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act. The accident which resulted in injuries to respondent and the death of the testator represented by him occurred on February 26, 1963. Claimant was appointed executor on April 23, 1963. Respondent alleges that his injuries prevented him from consulting with an attorney and taking the necessary steps to proceed against the State. This contention is buttressed by an affidavit of his physician that respondent was “ dazed, confused and unstable emotionally for a period of time from February 26th until sometime in July of 1963”. But the proof submitted 'by appellant discloses that on May 14, 1963 at a motor vehicle hearing relating to the same accident claimant testified that as far as he knew his general physical condition was perfect. We conclude that the granting of permission to file a claim by respondent as executor some six months after his appointment as such representative of the estate and as to his individual claim approximately eight months after the happening of the accident was an improvident exercise of discretion. *845(Cf. *Landry*v. *State of New York,*1 A D 2d 934, affd. 2 N Y 2d 927.) (Appeal from order of Court of Claims granting claimant’s motion to file a late claim.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecehio, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Gore, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and in the interest of justice and a new trial granted. Memorandum: The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the second degree and also from an order denying a writ of error *coram nobis*following a hearing. By stipulation these appeals have been consolidated. At the time of trial certain evidence (a postal badge) had been suppressed and of course was not used. Proof of an oral admission of the defendant was presented however. It is urged that this admission was the fruit of the illegally obtained and suppressed evidence. This however has never been judicially determined in an appropriate proceeding. We conclude that the judgment of conviction should under these circumstances and in the interest of justice be reversed and a new trial granted. This of course will afford the opportunity to test the legality of the alleged admission prior to a new trial. In view of this conclusion we do not reach or pass upon any other question. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court convicting defendant of burglary, third degree, and grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
Relief for Missing Borrowers and their Families

Today there exists another small popula�on for whom addi�onal regulatory guidance would be 

useful: borrowers who are determined to be missing persons. While there may be exis�ng 

protocols outlined in servicing requirements for DL and federally-held loans, commercial FFEL 

regulatory authority for holders and lenders to provide administra�ve forbearance relief when 

there is clear third-party validated evidence that the borrower is a missing person would be 

valuable. This would provide a regulatory permissible framework and allow faster and more 

automated relief to families during difficult �mes, without holders needing to immediately 

involve the Department. While we have not proposed in this text a �me limit for this temporary 

relief, we would suggest the Department consider what it views as an appropriate period of 

�me for this status un�l the loan returns to the normal discharge or default process for 

resolu�on and include that in the regula�on. Proposed regulatory text follows:

682.211 Forbearance

***

(j) Administrative forbearance for a missing borrower. Upon receipt of information that a 

borrower is missing, the lender may grant administrative forbearance in increments up to six 

months to verify the borrower’s status with a third party, including the National Missing 

Person’s Database, the missing person’s employer, a signed statement from the next of kin, a 

missing person’s report from a law enforcement agency, media report, or if the borrower is 

missing in a foreign country, the State Department. During this period interest will accrue but not 

be capitalized.
#### 2001.104-3 Copies.

Copies of the NRCAR in Federal Register and CFR form may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
1815.208 Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals. (NASA supplements paragraph (b)) ( b ) The FAR late proposal criteria do not apply to Announcements of Opportunity, NASA Research Announcements, and Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase I and Phase II solicitations, and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) solicitations. For these solicitations, proposals or proposal modifications received from qualified firms after the latest date specified for receipt may be considered if a significant reduction in cost to the Government is probable or if there are significant technical advantages, as compared with proposals previously received. In such cases, the project office shall investigate the circumstances surrounding the late submission, evaluate its content, and submit written recommendations and findings to the selection official or a designee as to whether there is an advantage to the Government in considering it. The selection official or a designee shall determine whether to consider the late submission.
[63 FR 9954, Feb. 27, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 21764, Apr. 22, 2004]
June 29, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: FAA-2015-1456 Change of Contact Information-Updated Email Address

To Whom it May Concern:

Please note that the email address in connection with Docket Number FAA-2015- 1456 has been changed. The new email address is as follows:

davidhil@bellsouth.net

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the above email address

or at 404.229.3044.

Sincerely,



# David Paul Hilton

David Paul Hilton Manager