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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1062 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1062

To eliminate the disparity in sentencing for cocaine offenses, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 2023

 Mr. Armstrong (for himself, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. Scott of 
  Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To eliminate the disparity in sentencing for cocaine offenses, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust 
Application of the Law Act'' or the ``EQUAL Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF INCREASED PENALTIES FOR COCAINE OFFENSES WHERE 
              THE COCAINE INVOLVED IS COCAINE BASE.

    (a) Controlled Substances Act.--The following provisions of the 
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) are repealed:
            (1) Clause (iii) of section 401(b)(1)(A) (21 U.S.C. 
        841(b)(1)(A)).
            (2) Clause (iii) of section 401(b)(1)(B) (21 U.S.C. 
        841(b)(1)(B)).
    (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act.--The following 
provisions of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 
U.S.C. 951 et seq.) are repealed:
            (1) Subparagraph (C) of section 1010(b)(1) (21 U.S.C. 
        960(b)(1)).
            (2) Subparagraph (C) of section 1010(b)(2) (21 U.S.C. 
        960(b)(2)).
    (c) Applicability to Pending and Past Cases.--
            (1) Pending cases.--This section, and the amendments made 
        by this section, shall apply to any sentence imposed after the 
        date of enactment of this Act, regardless of when the offense 
        was committed.
            (2) Past cases.--In the case of a defendant who, before the 
        date of enactment of this Act, was convicted or sentenced for a 
        Federal offense involving cocaine base, the sentencing court 
        may, on motion of the defendant, the Bureau of Prisons, the 
        attorney for the Government, or on its own motion, impose a 
        reduced sentence after considering the factors set forth in 
        section 3553(a) of title 18, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
#### 970.2201-2-1 Policy.

Contracting officers shall ensure that management and operating contractors manage overtime cost effectively and use overtime only when necessary to ensure performance of work under the contract.
#### § 1006.16 Fluid cream product.

See § 1000.16.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
A1                     5,330,138.03      22,755,358.87         0.00        193,244,641.13
A2                       457,405.00               0.00         0.00         17,706,000.00
A3                     1,075,000.00               0.00         0.00         43,000,000.00
A4                        27,233.32               0.00         0.00                  0.00
A5                       919,666.68               0.00         0.00         35,600,000.00
ALR                            0.32              50.00         0.00                  0.00
APO                            0.00           2,407.77         0.00            328,434.50
AR                             0.32              50.00         0.00                  0.00
B1                       151,291.13          15,003.01         0.00          5,846,997.00
B2                        71,464.55           7,086.89         0.00          2,761,913.12
B3                        42,016.72           4,166.64         0.00          1,623,833.35
B4                        29,422.03           2,917.67         0.00          1,137,082.32
B5                        16,801.53           1,666.14         0.00            649,333.86
B6                        25,087.01               0.00     2,501.89            975,038.67

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40973 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GARY SCHMUECKLE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(96-CR-115-1)

- - - - - - - - - - April 2, 1997 Before Wisdom, Jolly, and Benavides, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gary Schmueckle appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Schmueckle argues that the district court erred in its calculation of the drug amount attributable to him for sentencing purposes and that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to move for downward departure at sentencing. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and conclude that the district court did not commit plain error in its calculation of the drugNo. 96-40973 - 2 -

2 See § 2D1.1, Note (A) & comment. n.12; see also United States v. Sherrod , 964 F.2d 1501, 1508 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 1041 (1992).

3 See United States v. Price , 95 F.3d 364, 368-69 (5th Cir. 1996). amount attributable to Schmueckle. 2 We also conclude that the Government retained discretion to move for downward departure and did not breach the plea agreement by failing to do so. 3
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Page 11 of 20


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(d)

                        KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-B

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


Bank One, National Association           Banker's Trust Company, Deutsche Bank
One Bank One Plaza, Suite 0126           100 Plaza One, Mailstop: JCY03-6450
Chicago, IL  60670                       Jersey City, NJ 07310
Attn: Corporate Trust Administration     Attn: Corporate Trust & Agency Group
Phone: (312) 407-0192                           Structured Finance
Fax: (312) 407-1708                      Phone: (201) 593-6776
                                         Fax: (201) 593-6459

MBIA  Insurance Corporation              Key Bank USA, National Association
113 King Street                          800 Superior Ave, 4th Floor
Armonk, NY 10504                         Cleveland, Ohio 44114
ATTN: Data Administration                ATTN: Key Education Resources
Phone  (914) 765-3772                          Key Corp Student Loan Trust 2000B
Fax: (914) 765-3810                      Phone: (216) 828-9342
                                         Fax: (216) 828-9301


Pursuant to Section 4.09 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement among Key Bank USA,
National Association, as Seller, Master Servicer and Administrator, KeyCorp
Student Loan Trust 2000-B, and Bank One, National Association as Eligible Lender
Trustee, dated as of September 1, 2000 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned hereby
certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the Administrator from January
1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, and of its performance under the Agreement
has been made, and (ii) to the best of our knowledge, based on our review, the
Administrator has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement and the
related Administration Agreement respectively throughout such period.


                                           Key Bank USA, National Association,
                                           as Administrator


                                           by:
                                                  /S/ DARLENE H. DIMITRIJEVS
                                           -------------------------------------
Date: March 4, 2002                        Name:  Darlene H. Dimitrijevs, CPA
                                           Title: Senior Vice President


                                           by:
                                                  /S/ DEBRA S. FRONIUS
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Debra S. Fronius
                                           Title: Vice President
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Resource: Data Snapshot on Youth Residential Facilities      

# Resource: Data Snapshot on Youth Residential Facilities

This resource (PDF, 1 page) uses data from OJJDP’s 2014 Juvenile Residential Facility Census to illustrate changes in facility populations, characteristics, and practices. 

http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/snapshots/DataSnapshot_JRFC2014.pdf?utm_source=Youth.gov&utm_medium=Federal-Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J ANUARY 29, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 8

- 1 2 7 7 2 N o n - A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 7

- 0 0 3 3 1

- C R

- C G

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

B R E N T L A B A R R O N P U G H ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f A l a b a m a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( J a n u a r y 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e T J O F L A T , D U B I N A a n d C A R N E S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :
W i l l i a m G r e g o r y H u g h e s , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r B r e n t L

. P u g h , h a s f

i l e d am o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w o n a p p e a l s u p p o r t e d b y a b r i e f p r e p a r e d p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s

v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r
i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e

r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e

e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o i s s u e s o f a r g u a b l e m e r i t , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s
G R A N T E D a n d P u g h ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e s a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
EXHIBIT 32.1


                          SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                   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 Form 10-QSB/A of MADISON EXPLORATIONS, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kevin M. Stunder , Chief Executive Officer and Director 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 based on my knowledge:

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: March 30, 2006


/s/ KEVIN M. STUNDER
________________________________________
    Kevin M. Stunder
    Chief Executive Officer and Director


A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO MADISON EXPLORATIONS, INC. AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY MADISON EXPLORATIONS, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1**  **617**

In re: BENITO HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ , P etitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 1 :1 0

- c r - 00023

- MR

- 1 )

Submitted : August 28, 2014 Decided: September 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING , and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Benito Hernandez Hernandez , Petitioner Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Benito H. Hernand ez has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a supplemental petition seeking an order f rom this court to set aside the district court’s May 23, 2014, order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2102) motion. We conclude that Hernandez i s not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 35 3 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Hernandez is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his petition s for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

co ntentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### 9903.307 Cost Accounting Standards Preambles.

Preambles to the Cost Accounting Standards published by the original Cost Accounting Standards Board, as well as those preambles published by the signatories to the Federal Acquisition Regulation respecting changes made under their regulatory authorities, are available by writing to the: Publications Office, Office of Administration, Executive Office of the President, 725 17th Street NW., room 2200, Washington, DC 20500, or by calling (202) 395-7332.
#### 970.5226-2 Workforce restructuring under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993.

As prescribed in 970.2672-3, insert the following clause:

# Workforce Restructuring under Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (DEC 2000)

(a) Consistent with the objectives of Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, 42 U.S.C. 7274h, in instances where the Department of Energy has determined that a change in workforce at a Department of Energy Defense Nuclear Facility is necessary, the contractor agrees to (1) comply with the Department of Energy Workforce Restructuring Plan for the facility, if applicable, and (2) use its best efforts to accomplish workforce restructuring or displacement so as to mitigate social and economic impacts.

(b) The requirements of this clause shall be included in subcontracts at any tier (except subcontracts for commercial items pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 403) expected to exceed $500,000.

(End of clause)

[65 FR 81009, Dec. 22, 2000, as amended at 75 FR 68221, Nov. 5, 2010]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Catherine M. Alexander, Appellant. City University of New York, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[776 NYS2d 142]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 17, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a computer help-desk technician in the college computer center when, despite prior warnings, she continued to do her homework during working hours. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct. Claimant appeals.

Initially, we are unpersuaded by the employer’s contention *861that procedural errors in appealing the Board’s decision warrant dismissal of the appeal. Turning to the merits, a review of the record establishes that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. It is well settled that attending to personal business during working hours in violation of an employer’s policy can constitute misconduct *(see Matter of Bach [Commissioner of Labor],*306 AD2d 736, 737 [2003]; *Matter of Ellis [Commissioner of Labor],*264 AD2d 932 [1999]; *Matter of Limarzi [Sweeney],*244 AD2d 750, 751 [1997]). Here, the copy of claimant’s homework paper discovered in the printing tray of the office printer, indicating the date and time that the document was printed, confirmed that claimant had worked on her homework assignment during working hours. The conflicting testimony as to whether claimant did her homework on her break and whether a prior warning prohibiting attending to personal matters during work hours had been issued presented credibility issues which the Board was free to resolve in the employer’s favor *(see Matter of Adorno [LSG Sky Chefs—Commissioner of Labor],*271 AD2d 799, 800 [2000]). Claimant’s remaining contentions, including that she was improperly denied the right to call a witness and her entitlement to breaks pursuant to federal regulations, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit 32-5

Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Commonwealth Edison Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, that (i) the report fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Commonwealth Edison Company.



/s/    Frank M. ClarkFrank M. ClarkChairman and Chief Executive Officer


Date: April 23, 2009



181
NO. 07-97-0487-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	OCTOBER 25, 2001

	______________________________

	DANA MARIE CONTRERAS, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 37,880-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	ON REMAND FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

	Following a remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals, we now affirm the judgment of the trial court in this cause.  The procedural history underlying this opinion began when this court reversed the judgment of the trial court on rehearing.  Contreras v. State, 998 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1999).  Subsequently, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted the State’s petition for review and, thereafter, reversed and remanded the case back to this court.  Contreras v. State, No. 1682-99 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).   

	A detailed factual summary was set out in both the cases cited above, so our discussion will be limited to facts only as they become relevant to our decision.  The issue centers around the fact that appellant was not taken to the police department from the crime scene until 45 to 50 minutes after the police arrived.  The ultimate holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals is that the 45-minute delay in taking appellant to the police station cannot be construed as unnecessary.1  Specifically, the Court of Criminal Appeals deemed the 45-minute delay as “de minimis” and “necessary.”  In reaching its decision, that court reasoned that law enforcement was engaged in “trying to save the victim’s life,” investigating the stabbing, and securing the scene.  The Court of Criminal Appeals believed that six officers, paramedics, Amarillo Medical Services, and the Fire Department were “necessary” in order to properly carry out the listed tasks.   

	Thus, under these circumstances, “unnecessary delay” is not present, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

							John T. Boyd

							 Chief Justice

Publish.