alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### The Honorable Lyle E. Str om, United States District Judge for

the District of Nebraska. ___________ No. 96-2019

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Theodore James Foster, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 6, 1996 Filed: September 18, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Theodore James Foster appeals the 18-month sentence imposed on hi m by th e district court following his guilty plea to being a felon i n 1 possessio nof a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) an d 924(a)(2). We affirm. Foster argues the district court err ed in denying him an acceptanceof-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. We conclude, however , that the d istrict court did not clearly err in finding Foster falsel y stated the guns belon ged to his son, and thus in refusing to grant Foster the redu ction. See United States v. Evans , 51 F.3d 764, 766 (8th Cir
. 1995) (standard of review); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, co mment. (n.1(a)) (defendant who falsely denies relevant conduct which sentencing court determines to be true has

### -2-

acted in manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility). We rejec t Fost er's argument that the district court erred in not conducting a n evi dentiaryhearing on the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, a s Foster did not offer any evidence to support this reduction. See United States v. Morales , 923 F.2d 621, 628 (8th Cir. 1991) (defendant bear s burden for establishing acceptance of responsibility).

Foste r also argues that his counsel below was ineffective for no t making the district court aware that she was asking it to grant Foster a downwa rddeparture under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 based on Foster's physica l condition. Although a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel usually cannot be asserted for the first time on direct appeal, we conclude th e recor d belies Foster's contention that counsel's performance at th e sentencing hearing was deficient, as counsel asked the court to revie w Foster's medical records and specifically made r eference to section 5H1.4. See United States v. Williams , 897 F.2d 1430, 1434 (8th Cir. 1990 ) (considering ineffect ive-assistance claim on direct appeal because record was fully developed at post-trial hearing). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 903 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 903

  To amend the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 
  2010 to extend and expand the pilot program on the use of community-
 based organizations and local and State government entities to ensure 
 that veterans receive care and benefits for which they are eligible, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 7, 2017

 Mr. Udall (for himself and Mr. Tester) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 
  2010 to extend and expand the pilot program on the use of community-
 based organizations and local and State government entities to ensure 
 that veterans receive care and benefits for which they are eligible, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF PILOT PROGRAM ON USE OF CERTAIN 
              ORGANIZATIONS AND ENTITIES TO ENSURE THAT VETERANS 
              RECEIVE CARE AND BENEFITS FOR WHICH THEY ARE ELIGIBLE.

    (a) Extension.--Subsection (b) of section 506 of the Caregivers and 
Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-163; 38 
U.S.C. 523 note) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Duration of Program.--The Secretary may not carry out the 
pilot program after September 30, 2019.''.
    (b) Expansion of Locations.--Subsection (c) of such section is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Additional locations.--The Secretary may expand the 
        pilot program to include additional locations if the Secretary 
        recommends that the pilot program be expanded in the initial 
        report submitted under subsection (g)(2)(C).''.
    (c) Report.--Subsection (g) of such section is amended--
            (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Report on 
        Program'' and inserting ``Reports'';
            (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and not later than 180 
        days after the completion of the pilot program,'' after 
        ``September 30, 2017,''; and
            (3) in paragraph (2)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 
                striking ``The report'' and inserting ``Each report''; 
                and
                    (B) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``or 
                expanding'' after ``continuing''.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 1553

#### Editorial Note:

Forms referenced in part 1553 do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

#### 1553.232-72 EPA Form 1900-5, Contractor's Assignment of Refunds, Rebates, and Credits.

As prescribed in 1532.805-70(c), the EPA Form 1900-5 must be prepared by the Contractor prior to final payment under cost-reimbursement contracts and must accompany the Contractor's release.
**Issue Paper 7**

**Session 1:  November 13-15, 2017**

**Issue:**	Guaranty Agency Collection Fees

**Statutory cites:**§§428F(a) and 484A(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended

**Regulatory cites:**34 CFR 682.405(b)(1)(vi)(B)

**Summary of issue:**

In the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, a guaranty agency, after it pays a default claim and acquires the loan from the lender, is required to send an initial notice to the borrower.  In that notice, the guaranty agency must give the borrower at least 60 days to take any of several actions, including entering into a repayment agreement with the guaranty agency.  The Department, for loans it holds, does not charge collection costs to a defaulted borrower who enters into a repayment agreement or loan rehabilitation agreement within the 60-day period following an initial notice to the borrower.  

In 2015, the Department was asked whether, under Federal law, guaranty agencies could charge collection costs to defaulted borrowers who promptly enter into a repayment agreement, including a loan rehabilitation agreement, and who honor that agreement.  In Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) GEN-15-14 (July 10, 2015), we addressed this issue and explained that the Department’s regulations bar a guaranty agency from charging collection costs to a defaulted borrower who enters into a repayment agreement (including a rehabilitation agreement) within 60 days of receiving the initial notice sent by the guaranty agency after the guaranty agency acquires the loan from the lender and who honors that agreement.  The Department withdrew that DCL in March 2017 due to the lack of notice and opportunity to comment and said that it would pursue rulemaking on this issue.  

Question for consideration by the committee:

· Should the Department revise 34 CFR 682.410(b), regarding the charging of collection costs by a guaranty agency to a defaulted borrower who responds within 60 days to the initial notice sent by the guaranty agency after it pays a default claim and acquires the loan from the lender?  

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1997
<CASH>                                          16,161
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,039
<INVENTORY>                                     91,987
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,663
<PP&E>                                         437,524
<DEPRECIATION>                                 283,303
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 380,172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,079
<BONDS>                                         18,705
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,969
<OTHER-SE>                                     208,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   380,172
<SALES>                                        213,062
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               213,062
<CGS>                                          157,584
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  193,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (652)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   148
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,497
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,518
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,979
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,979
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.86
        

</TABLE>
Third Department,

October, 1963

(October 17, 1963)

#### Town of Union, Respondent, v. Thomas J. Conlon et al., as Commissioners of Election of the County of Broome, et al., Appellants.

In this action for a declaratory judgment to hold invalid a section of the proposed new Broome County Charter, a preliminary injunction has been granted at Special Term restraining the submission of this section of the charter at the General Election, November 5. The section in dispute would, among other things, dissolve the Town of Union Welfare District as a separate district and merge it with the welfare district of the County of Broome. The general rule is that the .process of enacting legislation by referendum or by direct legislative procedures will not be restrained by the court on the ground that the statute or other enactment that will ultimately emerge would be invalid. The statute is to be tested in the ordinary adversary litigation between parties whose rights will become affected by the impact of the legislation after it takes effect. The exception to this rule in New York is one of marked limitation and rests upon special circumstances, none of which is present in this case. *(Matter of NcCabe*v. *Voorhis,*243 N. Y. 401, 412.) As we view the litigation now before us, the danger foreseen in that ease that the issue would never be tested out judicially does not exist here. The main adversary units of government, the County of Broome and the Town of Union are both parties to the action which can proceed to a determination of the merits of the validity of the charter provision after the referendum. We express no view on the legal merits of the validity of the controverted section, except to note that it is a close question and that it ought to be decided definitively by a final judgment directly between the two municipal conporations rather than by an order addressed to the process of submission and enactment. The relief sought in the complaint is broad enough to embrace a full and final determination on the merits entirely appropriate to the action for declaratory judgment. Order reversed and motion for temporary injunction denied, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ., concur.
#### Marie Benz, Appellant, v. New York State Thruway Authority, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits  discrimination based on disability in any program or activity operated by  recipients of federal funds. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)  prohibits discrimination based on disability by public entities, regardless of  whether they receive federal financial assistance.

Examples  of the types of discrimination prohibited include  inequitable  access to educational  programs and facilities, denial of a free appropriate public education for elementary and secondary students, and refusal to implement or inappropriate  implementation of  academic  adjustments in higher education. A fuller list of Section 504 and Title II issues OCR addresses appears on the Disability Discrimination page.  The regulations for Section 504 and Title II are enforced by OCR and appear in  the Code of Federal Regulations here: Section 504 and Title  II of the ADA.

Section 504 and Title II also prohibit employment discrimination; complainants may choose whether to pursue such complaints with OCR or with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Find more information on Disability Discrimination here.

Links to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its implementing regulations:
                          - Public Law 93-113 - October 1, 1973 (USCode.house.gov)
                          -  34 CFR 104

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and its implementing regulations:
                          - 42 USC 12131-12134 (USCode.house.gov)
                          - 28 CFR 35

 

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
#### Buck *v.*Duval.

March 11, 1913.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Thomas. Tift superior court. November *2,*1912.

*L. P. Sheen,*for plaintiff. *R. D. Smith,*for defendant.

Evans, P. J.

The due and orderly progress of an execution issued on a judgment rendered by a city court having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, and affirmed on writ of error by the Court of Appeals, will not be restrained because of a contention that the judgment of the Court of Appeals was not in harmony with precedents established by the Supreme Court. *Saffold*v. *Mangum,*139 *Ga.*119 (76 S. E. 858).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beeh, J., absent. The other Justices concur.*
Disclaimer

### Department of Education

Republic of Palau National GovernmentMinistry of EducationMain Street Box 189Koror, PW 96940-0189Phone (680) 488-6425Fax: (680) 488-8465Website: http://www.palaumoe.net

### State Higher Education Agency

Palau Community CollegeP.O. Box 9Koror, Republic of Palau 96940Phone: (680) 488-2470Fax: (680) 488-2447Web site: http://pcc.palau.edu

### Special Education Agency

Special Education Program (Republic of Palau)Palau Ministry of EducationP.O. Box 189Koror, PW 96940Phone: (680) 488-2568Fax: (680) 488-5808Website: http://www.palaumoe.net/sped

### State Adult Education Agency

Adult Education ProgramMinistry of Education P.O. Box 189 Koror, PW 96940 Phone: (680) 488-5452 Fax: (680) 488-8230 Website: http://www.palaumoe.net

Back to state map
### §7281. Administration

#### (a) Use of Commodity Credit Corporation

The Secretary shall carry out this chapter through the Commodity Credit Corporation.

#### (b) Omitted

#### (c) Determinations by Secretary

A determination made by the Secretary under this chapter shall be final and conclusive.

#### (d) Regulations

Not later than 90 days after April 4, 1996, the Secretary and the Commodity Credit Corporation, as appropriate, shall issue such regulations as are necessary to implement this chapter. The issuance of the regulations shall be made without regard to—

(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of title 5;

(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804) relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in rulemaking; and

(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly know 1 as the "Paperwork Reduction Act").

(Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §161, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 934.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

For definition of "this chapter", referred to in text, see note set out under section 7201 of this title.

#### Codification

Section is comprised of section 161 of Pub. L. 104–127. Subsec. (b) of section 161 of Pub. L. 104–127 amended sections 714b, 714i, and 714k of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.

1 So in original. Probably should be "known".
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-K
the year ended  December  31,  1996 for May  Drilling Partnership  1983-2 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000711309
<NAME>                        May Drilling Partnership 1983-2
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         157
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               318
<PP&E>                                         16,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          27
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     837
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   864
<SALES>                                        922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               931
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               12
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                608
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            608
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   608
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  31.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  31.45
        


</TABLE>
1 

PARTY TYPE PARTIES 

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC v. Comfort Inn O’Hare, et al., 

Pre-consolidation N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:11-cv-06481 

Defendants Comfort Inn & Suites (Antioch) 

Comfort Inn & Suites (Markham) 

Comfort Inn (Mundelein) 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 188-1 Filed: 04/09/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:4650
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6820** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ERIC ARTHUR WALTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

**No. 13**  **- 6821** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ERIC ARTHUR WALTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg
. Irene M. Keeley , District Judge. ( 1:85

- cr - 00033

- IMK

- 1; 1:84

- CR

- 00100

- IMK

- JES

- 1 )

Submitted : August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Eric Arthur Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Eric Arthur Walton appeals the district court ’ s order denying his requests for a writ of error coram nobis and correction of his criminal judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. * Walton did not meet the requirements for c oram nobis relief. See United States v. Akinsade , 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012) (describing required showing) . N or did he establish a clerical error in the court’s criminal judgment. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Walton , Nos. 1:85

- cr - 00033

- IMK

- 1; 1:84

- cr - 00100

- IMK

- JES

- 1 (N.D.W. Va. May 9, 2013) . We deny Walton’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and le gal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

* On appeal, Walton does not challenge the court’s rejection of his claim that he was entitled to coram nobis relief because his statute of conviction was unconstitutionally vague. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to issues raised in informal brief ).