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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 682 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to require the Secretary of the 

Treasury to provide for the purchase of paper United States savings 

bonds with tax refunds. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2017 

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. KING, and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to require the Secretary of the Treasury to provide for the purchase of 

paper United States savings bonds with tax refunds. 

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 ‘‘Save Access to a Valu5 able Investment Needed to Generate Savings Act of 2017’’ 

6 or the ‘‘SAVINGS Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 682 IS

1 SEC. 2. PURCHASE PAPER UNITED STATES SAVINGS BONDS 

2 WITH TAX REFUND. 

3 Section 3106 of title 31, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(d) The Secretary shall— 

6 ‘‘(1) provide an option on the individual return 

7 of tax under subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code 

8 of 1986 to use a portion or all of a refund of over9 payment of such tax to purchase United States sav10 ings bonds in paper form for the taxpayer or any in11 dividual designated by the taxpayer; or 

12 ‘‘(2) provide an option on such return of tax 

13 that— 

14 ‘‘(A) allows for the gifting of United States 

15 savings bonds to any individual designated by 

16 the taxpayer; and 

17 ‘‘(B) serves the unbanked (within the 

18 meaning of section 49 of the Federal Deposit 

19 Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831z)) and individ20 uals who lack access to the Internet.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Journal officiel C 345/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0936 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 345 |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 58e année18 octobre 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0936

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 345

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

58e année18 octobre 2015

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Informations |
| | INFORMATIONS PROVENANT DES INSTITUTIONS, ORGANES ET ORGANISMES DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE |
| | Conseil |
| 2015/C 345/01 | Déclaration du Conseil | 1 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

IV   Informations

INFORMATIONS PROVENANT DES INSTITUTIONS, ORGANES ET ORGANISMES DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE

Conseil

2015/C 345/01

Déclaration du Conseil

1

---

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

IV Informations

INFORMATIONS PROVENANT DES INSTITUTIONS, ORGANES ET ORGANISMES DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE

Conseil

| 18.10.2015 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | C 345/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2015

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

C 345/1

---

DÉCLARATION DU CONSEIL

(2015/C 345/01)

Le Conseil note que l'engagement de lever toutes les sanctions de l'UE liées au nucléaire conformément au plan d'action global commun (ci-après dénommé le «plan d'action») est sans préjudice du mécanisme de règlement des différends qui est prévu dans ce plan ni du rétablissement des sanctions de l'UE en cas de non-respect manifeste par l'Iran des obligations lui incombant en vertu du plan d'action.

Le Conseil s'engage à rétablir sans délai toutes les sanctions de l'UE liées au nucléaire ayant été suspendues et/ou levées en cas de non-respect manifeste par l'Iran des obligations lui incombant en vertu du plan d'action, sur recommandation commune adressée au Conseil par le haut représentant de l'Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité, l'Allemagne, la France et le Royaume-Uni.

---
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 2729 DATE 11/19/2012

CASE

TITLE

Anna Haney vs. The Boeing Company, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Enter Order. Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Seal [65] is granted. Plaintiffs’ Petition to Approve Settlement

and Distribution in Wrongful Death Action may be filed under seal. 

O [ For further detail see separate order(s).] Mailed notice.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

IS

12C2729 Anna Haney vs. The Boeing Company, et al. Page 1 of 1
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Friday, February 6, 2015

No. 04-15-00055-CR

Kevin ODELL,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR5506

Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

ORDER

A Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal has been filed in this appeal 

in which the trial court judge certifies that the underlying criminal case “is a plea-bargain case, 

and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” It is therefore ORDERED that the trial court clerk 

file an electronic clerk’s record within ten days from the date of this order containing the 

following documents:

1. All pre-trial orders and the related pre-trial motions;

2. The Court Admonishments, the Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of Testimony and 

Stipulations, and all other documents relating to the defendant’s plea bargain;

3. The judgment;

4. All post-judgment motions and orders;

5. The notice of appeal;

6. The Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal; and

7. The criminal docket sheet.
All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. The clerk of this 

court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court clerk, 

and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of February, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/PublicationsNOAA Tech Memo NMFS NWFSC-8: Contaminant Exposure in Juvenile Salmon (cont): Figure 5 
Table of Contents
3/2/2009 

U.S. Department of Education 

Negotiated Rulemaking 

1990 K Street, N.W., 8th Floor Conference Center 

Washington, D.C. 

Team I – General/Lender Loan Issues 

Meeting Two 

March 30-31, 2009, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. 

April 1, 2009, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. 

Agenda*

Welcome 

Review, Revise, and Approve Meeting One Summary 

Review Department Response to Proposed Additional Issues 

Finalize List of Issues to be Negotiated 

Review Draft Regulatory Text:

1. Determining Borrower Eligibility for In-School Deferment 

2. Borrower Notification When the Transfer, Sale, or Assignment of a Loan Results 

in a Change in the Party to Whom Payments Must be Sent 

3. Lender and Guaranty Agency Prohibited Inducements 

4. Lender Forebearance and Borrower Contact Requirements 

5. Applicability of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to FFEL and Direct Loan 

Borrowers and related FFEL Lender Special Allowance Payment Calculations 

6. Guaranty Agency Notifications to Borrowers in Default; Financial and Economic 

Literacy for Rehabilitated Borrowers 

7. PLUS Loan Deferments and Interest Capitalization 

8. Consolidation Loan Borrower Eligibility and Applicant Disclosures 

9. Consumer Credit Reporting After Loan Rehabilitation; Eligibility for Loan 

Rehabilitation 

10. FFEL and Direct Loan Teacher Loan Forgiveness 

11. Required Education Loan Borrower Disclosures by FFEL Lenders 

 

* Time will be made available for public comment during the meeting. 
3/2/2009 

12. Consumer Education Information Provided by Guaranty Agencies 

13. New Audit Requirement for FFEL School Lenders and Eligible Lender Trustees 

(ELTs) Originating FFEL Loans for an Institution or School-Affiliated 

Organization 

14. Loan Discharges Based on Total and Permanent Disability 

15. Required Education Loan Borrower Disclosures by Lenders 

Next Steps 

Draft Regulatory Text 

Agenda for Meeting Three: May 4-6, 2009 

Meeting Summary 

Other
#### 2052.235-71 Safety, health, and fire protection.

As prescribed in 2035.70(a)(2), the contracting officer shall insert the following clause in applicable solicitations and contracts for research and development by private contractors and universities and for other technical services as appropriate:

# Safety, Health, and Fire Protection (JAN 1993)

The contractor shall take all reasonable precautions in the performance of the work under this contract to protect the health and safety of its employees and of members of the public, including NRC employees and contractor personnel, and to minimize danger from all hazards to life and property. The contractor shall comply with all applicable health, safety, and fire protection regulations and requirements (including reporting requirements) of the Commission and the Department of Labor. If the contractor fails to comply with these regulations or requirements, the contracting officer may, without prejudice to any other legal or contractual rights of the Commission, issue an order stopping all or any part of the work. Thereafter, a start work order for resumption of work may be issued at the discretion of the contracting officer. The contractor may not make a claim for an extension of time or for compensation or damages by reason of, or in connection with, this type of work stoppage.

(End of clause)
EXHIBIT 32.1



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-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Michael J. Cave, President of the Company, certify that:



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



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



|                 |  |                    
|---------------- |  | -------------------
|February 8, 2010 |  | /s/ MICHAEL J. CAVE
|                 |  | Michael J. Cave    
|                 |  | President          



47
Outlier Identification GE Data Sheet A

February 2018 U.S. Department of Education

PUBLIC 1

Negotiators expressed interest in using repayment rate as a metric for identifying programs 

that do not meet Department benchmarks. This report provides one option for identifying 

outliers1,2. The Department invites discussion and recommendations.

Open questions:

1. Should outliers be identified at the individual CIP level, among institutions of similar size 

and scope that serve a demographically matched student population, or across the 

universe?

2. How should thresholds be selected?

3. How frequently should thresholds be re-assessed?

4. How should the methods and thresholds be made available to the public? 

Recommended Method: Box Plots3,4

Threshold set at first quartile reduced by 1.5 times the interquartile range (IQR). The IQR is the 

third quartile minus the first quartile (Threshold = Q1 – 1.5(Q3 – Q1)). 

Source: The SAS System Documentation. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA. 

 

1

Iglewicz, Boris and Hoaglin, David (1993), "Volume 16: How to Detect and Handle Outliers", The ASQC Basic 

References in Quality Control: Statistical Techniques, ASQC Quality Press. Milwaukee, WI.

2

Barnett and Lewis (1994), Outliers in Statistical Data, 3rd. Ed., John Wiley and Sons.

3

Chambers, John, William Cleveland, Beat Kleiner, and Paul Tukey, (1983), Graphical Methods for Data Analysis, 

Wadsworth.

4

Dawson, Robert. (2011). “Volume 19, Number 2: How Significant is a Boxplot?” Journal of Statistics Education. 

Accessed from: http://ww2.amstat.org/publications/jse/v19n2/dawson.pdf
Outlier Identification GE Data Sheet A

February 2018 U.S. Department of Education

PUBLIC 2

The benchmark for repayment rate would be set at the lower fence (Q2 – 1.5*IQR). Therefore, 

programs or institutions with repayment rates less than the lower fence would not meet 

benchmarks. If the lower fence is less than zero, the threshold would be set at 0 percent.

The example below uses randomly generated values that are normally distributed. We 

assumed a mean of 46 and a standard deviation of 12. To mimic repayment rate, the data were 

created to range from 0% to 100%. Note that there are two elements identified as “outliers” 

for repayment rate. That is, they fall below the lower fence.

Source: generated using SAS software, Version 9.4. Copyright 2012. SAS Institute Inc.

Other methods considered:

 Percentiles—Choosing a specific percentile as a threshold assumes that outliers exist 

and that elements beyond that threshold are outliers.

 Statistical test5,6—Most tests for outliers require selection of number of outliers to 

identify or an upper limit on number of outliers to identify. Tests would be run annually 

on the data, no thresholds would be made available in advance, and programs identified 

as outliers would be notified after statistical testing is complete. 

 

5

Tietjen and Moore (August 1972), Some Grubbs-Type Statistics for the Detection of Outliers, Technometrics, 

14(3), pp. 583-597.

6

Rosner, Bernard (May 1983), Percentage Points for a Generalized ESD Many-Outlier Procedure, Technometrics, 

25(2), pp. 165-172.
16.403 Fixed-price incentive contracts. ( a ) *Description.* A fixed-price incentive contract is a fixed-price contract that provides for adjusting profit and establishing the final contract price by application of a formula based on the relationship of total final negotiated cost to total target cost. The final price is subject to a price ceiling, negotiated at the outset. The two forms of fixed-price incentive contracts, firm target and successive targets, are further described in 16.403-1 and 16.403-2 below.
( b ) *Application.* A fixed-price incentive contract is appropriate when— ( 1 ) A firm-fixed-price contract is not suitable;
( 2 ) The nature of the supplies or services being acquired and other circumstances of the acquisition are such that the contractor's assumption of a degree of cost responsibility will provide a positive profit incentive for effective cost control and performance; and
( 3 ) If the contract also includes incentives on technical performance and/or delivery, the performance requirements provide a reasonable opportunity for the incentives to have a meaningful impact on the contractor's management of the work.
( c ) *Billing prices.* In fixed-price incentive contracts, billing prices are established as an interim basis for payment. These billing prices may be adjusted, within the ceiling limits, upon request of either party to the contract, when it becomes apparent that final negotiated cost will be substantially different from the target cost.
[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 59 FR 64785, Dec. 15, 1994]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Ray YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-3856.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2008.

Decided June 12, 2008.

Michelle L. Jacobs, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donald Ray Young, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.

Christopher D. Donovan, Pruhs Law Office, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge and TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Donald Ray Young pleaded guilty to distributing crack cocaine, *see*21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and because the offense involved 50 or more grams he was sentenced to the statutory minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release, *see*21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(l)(A)(iii). Young filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel moves to withdraw because he cannot discern a nonfrivolous basis for the appeal. *See Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We invited Young to respond to counsel’s submission, *see*Cir. Rule 51(b), but he has not. We limit our review to the potential issues identified in counsel’s supporting brief. *See United States v. Schuh,*289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.2002).

Young does not want his guilty plea set aside, so counsel properly omits from his *Anders*submission any discussion of the voluntariness of the plea or the adequacy of the plea colloquy. *See United States v. Knox,*287 F.3d 667, 671-72 (7th Cir.2002). Counsel instead examines whether Young could challenge his prison sentence as unreasonable. Counsel notes that the district court properly calculated the applicable guidelines range and considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). *See Rita v. United States,*- U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). But the court also recognized that 10-years’ imprisonment was the statutory minimum sentence for Young’s crime, and the court had no discretion to impose anything less. *See United States v. Duncan,*479 F.3d 924, 930 (7th Cir.2007); *United States v. Lee,*399 F.3d 864, 866 (7th Cir.2005). Counsel is thus correct that a reasonableness challenge would be frivolous.

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 11 CR 469

)

WILLIE JONES, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Willie Jones ("Jones") has just filed a self-prepared "Motion for Sentencing Transcript's 

[sic] docket sheet, Judgement [sic] and Commitment and All Discover's [sic]," complaining 

about the asserted inaction of his lawyer in obtaining those documents "for appeal reasons."

Because Jones is represented by counsel, he is not permitted under law to act pro se. Moreover,

this Court cannot make any judgment on the subject of claimed "inaction," for it has no way of 

knowing the situation as between a client and his lawyer (a subject of privilege).

Because Jones has included a "Certificate of Service" that reflects his having served a 

copy of the motion "upon the parties name[d]," this Court will take no action at this time. It 

expects of course that Jones' counsel will take whatever steps are necessary in conjunction with 

Jones' appeal.

__________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: November 7, 2014
#### 1816.402-2 Performance incentives.
Exhibit 32(c)








CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Carolina Power & Light Company (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lloyd M. Yates, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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











/s/ Lloyd M. Yates


Lloyd M. Yates


President and Chief Executive Officer


August 6, 2010








This certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
S. Con. Res. 43 Agreed to August 28, 2018

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed 

to transfer the catafalque which is situated in the Exhibition Hall 

of the Capitol Visitor Center to the rotunda of the Capitol so 

that such catafalque may be used in connection with services to 

be conducted there for the Honorable John Sidney McCain, III, 

late a Senator from the State of Arizona and formerly a Representative from that State. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.