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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           12976
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   657624
<ALLOWANCES>                                     24369
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                            4991
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  653581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         403350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      131090
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    653581
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 28142
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    15035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  13107
<INCOME-TAX>                                      4800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8307
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8307
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[107th Congress Public Law 254]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ254.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 1733]]

Public Law 107-254
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To authorize the duration of the base contract of the Navy-Marine Corps 
  Intranet contract to be more than five years but not more than seven 
             years. <<NOTE: Oct. 29, 2002 -  [H.R. 5647]>> 

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZED DURATION OF BASE CONTRACT FOR NAVY-MARINE CORPS 
            INTRANET.

    Section 814 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2001, as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398 (114 
Stat. 1654A-215) and amended by section 362 of Public Law 107-107 (115 
Stat. 1065), is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following new 
        subsection (i):

    ``(i) Duration of Base Navy-Marine Corps Intranet Contract.--
Notwithstanding section 2306c of title 10, United States Code, the base 
contract of the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract may have a term in 
excess of five years, but not more than seven years.''.

    Approved October 29, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5647:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            Oct. 16, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 17, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

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-QSB of Shelter Properties VII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each 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 his 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 Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: November 13, 2007
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: November 13, 2007





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
47.506 Procedures.

(a) The contracting officer shall obtain assistance from the transportation activity (see 47.105) in

developing appropriate shipping instructions and delivery terms for inclusion in solicitations and

contracts that may involve ocean transportation of supplies subject to the requirements of the Cargo

Preference Act of1954 (see 47.502(a)(3)).

(b) When the contractor notifies the contracting officer that a privately owned U.S.-flag commercial

vessel is not available, the contracting officer shall seek assistance from the transportation activity.

(c) For purposes of determining the availability of privately owned U.S.-flag commercial vessels at

fair and reasonable rates, rates filed and published in accordance with the requirements of the

Federal Maritime Commission may be accepted as fair and reasonable. When applicable rates for

charter cargoes are not in published tariffs, a determination as to whether the rates are fair and

reasonable shall be obtained from the Maritime Administration.

(d) The Maritime Administration has issued regulations (46 CFR381) that require agencies to submit

reports regarding ocean shipments. Contracting officers shall follow agency regulations when

preparing, or furnishing information for, these reports.

Parent topic: Subpart 47.5 - Ocean Transportation by U.S.-Flag Vessels
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:94cr5003 LAC

TIMOTHY GARRETT

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on MARCH 11, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on March 10, 2008 Doc.# 365

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 12

th day of

March, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED. MOOT.

(b) See doc 364. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 5:94-cr-05003-LC Document 366 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 1
#### § 61.27 Period of license; renewals.

The period for which a license may be issued under the regulations in §§ 61.25 through 61.42 shall be from the first day of August following receipt of the application, and shall continue for 5 years, ending on the 31st of July in the fifth year. Renewals shall be for 5 years also, beginning with the first day of August and ending on the 31st day of July in the fifth year: Provided, That licenses or renewals issued on and after June 1 of any year shall be for the period ending July 31 of the fifth year following.

[59 FR 26411, May 20, 1994]
#### §§ 4279.85-4279.99 [Reserved]
§ 633.6 Program participation requirements. ( a ) *WBP Agreement.* An agreement shall be executed for each participating farm. The agreement shall be signed by the owner of the designated acreage and any other person who, as landlord, tenant, or share cropper, will share in the payment or has an interest in the designated acreage. There may be more than one agreement for a farm.
( b ) *Agreement period.* The agreement period shall: ( 1 ) Be for a term of 10 years;
( 2 ) Become effective on January 1 of the year in which the agreement is approved except that the agreement shall become effective on January 1 of the next succeeding year in cases where, at the time the agreement is approved, the NRCS determines that the agreement signers will be unable to comply with the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section in the year in which such agreement is approved.
( c ) *Agreement terms and conditions.* The acreage designated under an agreement shall: ( 1 ) Be maintained for the agreement period in a manner which will preserve, restore, or improve the wetland character of the land;
( 2 ) Not be drained, burned, filled, or otherwise used in a manner which would destroy the wetland character of the acreage, except that the provisions of this paragraph shall not prohibit the carrying out of management practices which are specified in a conservation plan for the farm;
( 3 ) Not be used as a dumping area for draining other wetlands, except where the State Conservationist determines that such use is consistent with the sound management of wetlands and is specified in the conservation plan;
( 4 ) Not be used as a source of irrigation water;
( 5 ) Not be used for the harvesting of a crop;
( 6 ) Not be hayed except for during periods of severe drought and only under conditions prescribed by the State Conservationist in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior or his designee; and
( 7 ) Not be grazed, except as may be specified in the conservation plan.
§ 634.28 Appeals not related to contract violations. ( a ) The participant may, prior to execution of the contract, request that the administering agency review or reconsider criteria being used in developing his or her contract. Such review or reconsideration may include the eligibility of BMP's which had not been approved for application in the project area, cost-sharing levels for BMP's, priorities for developing water quality plans, and standards and specifications. ( 1 ) If verbal agreement is not reached, the participant may make a written request within 30 days after receiving notice of the decision of his or her verbal request.
( 2 ) The administering agency shall have 30 days in which to make a decision and notify the participant in writing.
( 3 ) The decision of the administering agency shall be final.
( b ) If, after the contract has been executed, the participant and the administering agency are unable to reach written agreement relative on matters which are not related to contract violations, the participant may request and receive a review by the appeals board. The administering agency will: ( 1 ) Notify the participant, in writing, of the date the appeals board will consider the appeal.
( 2 ) Within 30 days after receiving the administering agency's notice, the participant may file a request to appear and present oral and other evidence. If the participant does not request an appearance, the administering agency appeals board will decide the dispute on the evidence available to them, including statements or briefs of the authorized representatives of the soil conservation district and NRCS. The administering agency shall notify the participants of the appeals board's decision in writing. There shall be no further administrative appeal of this decision.
( c ) *Filing of documents.* A document is considered filed when it is received in the office of the person or agency concerned.
1

Wiley, Adina

From: Weiler, Jeff <Jeff.Weiler@energytransfer.com>

Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 10:48 AM

To: Wiley, Adina

Cc: Cowan, Clint

Subject: RE: GHG Permitting Authority Letter

Since our draft permit for the Lone Star Mont Belvieu FRAC III plant is currently in public notice and that will end April 7,

I see no reason to switch permitting authority at this time to the TCEQ.  I would prefer to complete the permit issuance

process through the EPA.

Regards,

Jeff Weiler

Sr. Environmental Manager

From: Wiley, Adina [mailto:Wiley.Adina@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:03 PM 

To: Weiler, Jeff 

Subject: GHG Permitting Authority Letter 

Sending on behalf of Jeff Robinson.

Adina R. Wiley, Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA Region 6

Air Permits Section (6PD‐R)

1445 Ross Ave.

Dallas, TX  75202

(214) 665‐2115

wiley.adina@epa.gov

POSITIONS or VIEWS EXPRESSED DO NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY

Private and confidential as detailed here. If you cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2757 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2757

    To temporarily increase the standard mileage rate for use of an 
    automobile for purposes of certain deductions allowed under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and to temporarily increase the 
   reimbursement rate for use of an automobile by Federal employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2006

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To temporarily increase the standard mileage rate for use of an 
    automobile for purposes of certain deductions allowed under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and to temporarily increase the 
   reimbursement rate for use of an automobile by Federal employees.

    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 ``Reimbursing Our American Drivers 
(ROAD) Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN MILEAGE RATE DEDUCTION.

    (a) Rate for Business, Medical, and Moving Use of an Automobile.--
For purposes of sections 162(a), 213(d)(1)(B), and 217 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, the standard mileage rate for use of an 
automobile shall be 60 cents per mile for any use after December 31, 
2005, and before January 1, 2007.
    (b) Rate for Charitable Use of an Automobile.--Section 170(i) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``(60 cents 
per mile for any use after December 31, 2005, and before January 1, 
2007)'' before the period at the end.

SEC. 3. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN REIMBURSEMENT RATE FOR USE OF AN 
              AUTOMOBILE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

    For purposes of section 5704 of title 5, United States Code, the 
standard mileage rate for use of an automobile for an employee who is 
engaged on official business for the Government shall be 60 cents per 
mile for any use after December 31, 2005, and before January 1, 2007.
                                 <all>
```
52.232-4 Payments under Transportation

Contracts and Transportation-Related

Services Contracts.

As prescribed in 32.111(a)(4), insert the following clause, appropriately modified with respect to

payment due dates in accordance with agency regulations, in solicitations and contracts for

transportation or transportation-related services:

Payments under Transportation Contracts and Transportation-Related Services Contracts (Apr 1984)

The Government shall pay the Contractor upon the submission of properly certified invoices or

vouchers, the amount due for services rendered and accepted, less deductions, if any, as herein

provided.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.232 [Reserved]
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2978

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Northern Iowa.

Duane “Red” Clasen, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

 Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 10, 2004

Filed: March 23, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Duane Clasen pled guilty to distribution of 6.85 grams of methamphetamine

(mixture) after having previously been convicted of one or more felony drug offenses

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 851. The undisputed

sentencing range was 188 - 235 months. The district court sentenced Clasen to 200

months imprisonment, stating that “when I looked at this file originally, I was going

to sentence him to the maximum, which was 235 months. Based on what [the

attorney for the government] has told me, I have decreased it somewhat.” (Sentencing

Hr’g Tr. at 12.) Clasen appeals his sentence arguing that the district court violated
-2-

his due process right to an impartial judge by determining what sentence it would

impose prior to the sentencing hearing. 

“It is well settled that a sentence within the range provided by statute is

generally not reviewable by an appellate court.” United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d

672, 679 (8th Cir. 2003). Clasen presents no evidence to cause us to veer from this

rule. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (enumerating the circumstances when a defendant can

appeal an otherwise final sentence). Due to the complexities of guideline sentencing,

a district court needs to prepare in advance of the sentencing hearing. Here, the

district court also properly considered the points the parties advanced at the hearing

before it imposed Clasen’s sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

______________________________
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

TROY MONN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-266-TKW-MJF

CENTURION OF FLORIDA, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 34). No objections were filed.

Upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation and the case file, 

the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claims against Defendants M. Marlowe and Centurion of Florida, LLC, 

fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that those claims should be 

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 

1915A(b)(1). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 5:20-cv-00266-TKW-MJF Document 35 Filed 04/11/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant M. Marlowe is

DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 

1915A(b)(1).

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Centurion of 

Florida, LLC, is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).

4. This case is recommitted to the magistrate judge to address Plaintiff’s 

remaining claims.

DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of April, 2022.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00266-TKW-MJF Document 35 Filed 04/11/22 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:99cr18/RV

MICHAEL CRAIG PUGH

 a/k/a Crucito Solano Serrano

_____________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated May 21, 2009. The defendant previously has been furnished

a copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to

file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), and I have

made a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been

made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed by the parties, I have determined that the report and recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion for DNA testing (doc. 152) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of July, 2009.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1778
In re: JOSEPH CARPINO, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition. (CA-01-80) Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: November 15, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Carpino, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Carpino petitions this court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, asking us to order the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia, to address several alleged errors in its resolution of Carpino’s underlying litigation against Wheeling Volkswagen Subaru. Mandamus relief is only available 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). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Carpino has no right to the relief he seeks because a federal circuit court cannot exercise appellate review over state court decisions. SeeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Moreover, Carpino had an available remedy because he could have appealed the decision with the state court system. See In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Carpino’s motion for due process, in which he challenges the constitutionality of a West Virginia magistrate’s rule, because this petition is not the appropriate forum for such a challenge. We further deny Carpino’s motion for discovery. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### § 58.715 Cream, plastic cream and anhydrous milkfat.

These food products shall be pasteurized, sweet, have a pleasing and desirable flavor and be free from objectionable flavors, and shall be obtained from milk which complies with the quality requirements as specified in §§ 58.132 through 58.138 of this subpart.
#### § 58.244 Number of samples.

As many samples shall be taken from each dryer production lot as is necessary to assure proper composition and quality control. A sufficient number of representative samples from the lot shall be taken to assure compliance with the stated net weight on the container.
#### The People of the State of New York *v.*The Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company.

(Argued June 18,1884;

decided June 27, 1884.)

*William Ba/rnes*for appellant.

*John C. Keeler*for respondent.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.