alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20593

Summary Calendar 

JOHN SCOTT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant 

v. 

BILLY PIERCE, Chaplain-Director-Texas Department of Criminal Justice; 

AKBAR SHABAZZ, Chaplain-Texas Department of Criminal Justice; KEITH 

THEDFORD, Chaplain-Texas Department of Criminal Justice; TRACY 

BAILEY, Warden-Texas Department of Criminal Justice; BREWER, Warden; 

VANCE DRUM, 

Defendants-Appellees 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:13-CV-3572

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

John Scott, Texas prisoner # 806296, is a practitioner of Islam and, in 

particular, an adherent of the Moorish Science Temple of America sect of 

Islam. While in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fif h Circuit

FILED

May 16, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20593 Document: 00513994856 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2017
No. 15-20593

2 

Estelle Unit, Scott filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit alleging that the prison’s 

religious programming policies violated his rights under the First Amendment 

and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 

U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment, denied Scott’s motion for summary judgment, and 

dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice. 

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. 

Haverda v. Hays County, 723 F.3d 586, 591 (5th Cir. 2013). “The First 

Amendment . . . is violated when prisoners are not afforded ‘reasonable 

opportunity’ to exercise their religious beliefs.” Davis v. Davis, 826 F.3d 258,

265 (5th Cir. 2016). “RLUIPA imposes a higher burden than does the First 

Amendment in that the statute requires prison regulators to put forth a 

stronger justification for regulations that impinge on the religious practices of 

prison inmates.” Mayfield v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599, 

612 (5th Cir. 2008). Under RLUIPA, “[n]o government shall impose a 

substantial burden on [an inmate’s] religious exercise . . . unless [it] 

demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person -- (1) is in 

furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least 

restrictive means of furthering that . . . interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a).

In view of Scott’s conclusional allegations and the defendants’ summary 

judgment evidence, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting 

summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Accordingly, the district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-20593 Document: 00513994856 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2017
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 43.5 Review of decisions by non-Management Judges.

If the Office establishes procedures governing the internal circulation and review of decisions prior to issuance to one or more designated members of the Board:

(a) No Management Judge or an officer or employee external to the Board shall participate directly or indirectly in any such review and the reviewing non-Management Judges shall not discuss the substance of any circulated decision with a Management Judge prior to issuance of the decision, except with a Management Judge who is a member of the panel; and

(b) Any edits, suggestions, or feedback provided to the panel pursuant to such circulation and review are optional and in the sole discretion of the panel to accept. The panel has final authority and responsibility for the content of a decision and determines whether and how to incorporate any feedback provided.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 11.41 Filing of papers.

(a) The provisions of §§ 1.8 and 2.197 of this chapter do not apply to disciplinary proceedings. All papers filed after the complaint and prior to entry of an initial decision by the hearing officer shall be filed with the hearing officer at an address or place designated by the hearing officer. The term “filed” means the delivery, mailing, or electronic transmission of a document to a hearing officer or designee in connection with a disciplinary complaint or related matter.

(b) All papers filed after entry of an initial decision by the hearing officer shall be filed with the USPTO Director. A copy of the paper shall be served on the OED Director. The hearing officer or the OED Director may provide for filing papers and other matters by hand, by Priority Mail Express®, or by other means.

[69 FR 35452, June 24, 2004, as amended at 79 FR 63042, Oct. 22, 2014; 86 FR 28461, May 26, 2021]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1813 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1813

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
               deduction for mortgage insurance premiums.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2007

 Mr. Levin (for himself, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, 
Mr. Herger, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Camp of Michigan, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. English 
of Pennsylvania, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Weller of Illinois, Mr. Crowley, Mr. 
    Lewis of Kentucky, Ms. Schwartz, and Mr. Cantor) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
               deduction for mortgage insurance premiums.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT DEDUCTION FOR MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 163(h)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to mortgage insurance premiums 
treated as interest) is amended by striking clause (iv).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to amounts paid or accrued after December 31, 2007, and to amounts 
properly allocable to any period after such date.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22202]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11862 and <greek-i>11863]


Kentucky Disaster <greek-i> KY-00029

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky dated 09/04/2009.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 08/12/2009.

DATES: Effective Date: 09/04/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/03/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/04/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Leslie.
Contiguous Counties: Kentucky. Bell, Clay, Harlan, Perry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interest Rates are:
  Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      5.500
  Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      2.750
  Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      6.000
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit      4.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit           4.500
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit           4.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11862 6 
and for economic injury is 11863 0.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> is Kentucky.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: September 4, 2009.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-22202 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 

Kendyl Crawford 

7/30114 

The National Climate Assessment released this past June announces that children, 

the elderly, the sick, the poor and some communities of color are the most at risk of the 

negative health impacts of climate change. The Assessment reports that the impacts of 

climate change are here today and that they will intensify our existing threats to health. 

One threat predicted to worsen is respiratory stress from poor air quality. This does not 

look good for those, like me, with conditions like asthma, with the report predicting 

increased smog, more wildfires, longer pollen seasons, higher pollen concentrations and 

worsening indoor air quality due to fungi and molds. 

We cannot afford to let climate change amplify our health risks especially when it 

will come at the expense of the most vulnerable among us. According to the U.S. Office 

of Minority Health, African-Americans are 3 times more likely to die from asthmarelated causes than Caucasians and African-American children are 3.6 times more likely 

to visit the emergency room for asthma than Caucasian children. According to the 

Energy, Economics and the Environment: Effects on African Americans report released 

by the American Association of Blacks in Energy, approximately 78% of African 

Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. Although coal is often hailed 

as being the most cost-effective energy solution, this does not take into account all of the 

burdens that weigh down on the communities closest to the plants. Unfortunately, African 

Americans with lower rates of health insurance coverage have fewer resources to manage 

these added impacts. These communities suffer from increased rates of asthma, lost 

school and work days not to mention lead exposure which has been linked to attention 

deficits and higher incidences of violent crime. Surely, these "expenses" should be 

calculated as a part of the true cost of our energy production. 

I feel that these health disparities need to be addressed, the vulnerable need to be 

protected and we as a society need to become serious about fighting climate change. We 

cannot ignore the alarming health disparities within our community. With carbon 

pollution being the chief cause of climate change and with power plants being the chief 

source of that pollution, I support the Clean Power Plan and call for it to be strengthened 

to reduce our carbon emissions by 35% based on 2005 levels by 2020. The vulnerable, 

our children and future generations are too important for us to not take strong and 

decisive action by embracing clean and renewable energy. 

(7 57) 268-8810 

132 Ivy Home Rd. 

Hampton, VA 23669
June 1, 2015 

Mr. Brad Styron 

324 Live Oak Street 

Emerald Isle, NC 28594 

Dear Mr. Styron: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 29, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1329), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
- Office Home
- Partnerships
- Tools
- Opportunities
- Newsroom
- Contact Us

HomeOffice of Global Partnerships...Newsroom – Office of Global Partnerships

# 						Newsroom – Office of Global Partnerships					

							Collection of releases related to the Office of Global Partnerships. 						

36 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year20242023202220212020201920182017

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a LocationBelgiumBrazilCambodiaChileColombiaCosta RicaCroatiaEthiopiaGuatemalaKosovoMexicoMoroccoNorth MacedoniaPanamaPeruUgandaUkraineVietnamZambia

Select a Release TypeMedia Note

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of African AffairsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Energy ResourcesBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsOffice of Commercial and Business AffairsOffice of Global PartnershipsOffice of Public LiaisonOffice of the SpokespersonUnder Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the EnvironmentUnder Secretary for Political Affairs

          -    		Reports – Office of Global Partnerships	   
          -    		Contact Us – Office of Global Partnerships	   
          -    		About Us – Office of Global Partnerships	   
          -    		Franklin Talent Exchange Partnership (FTEP)	   
          -    		P3 Impact Award	   
          -    		WiSci (Women In Science) Steam Camp Partnership	   

previous page1234

Back to Top
p. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 161 ) ll-E-1 2
Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:59 AM Sheet 161 of 276P. 2


### ^ y 

### Y^ : ^E:E\\\^ & l ^ *^ 1 ^ 

# M II-E-1 2

Note : Th e Administrativ e Recor ddescribe dthi s itemas a nattendanc e sheet

fo r April 19 , 198 8 meetin g an dameetin g hand-out o f th e Por t Washingto nCapacit

y lxvel s and S0 2 Emission s fo

r 197 8 thr

u 1997

.

\QQ \[>'•' jP. 3

* •I 7. 4 IAJ&P&T. 

### v\A.^a.TWo ~

S TO / v 

### OA-6^a&Tl£>\J TB i £&

.

fourth fc ^uyA*, i ^091 ) e 

### f5S-/5'<+5' ls/'i£~c/y~^itLrt

$./?. 2,2.j2."? £ $- 

# M&UJ 

# &-oz) c 

# iSS'i56 l\//i> L<urc /-L/i f/4-

z.^ / -XI4-1



# [..viiii^S 1 

# !

li t ;''.;; ! D N u\99

\ p
.
« ^PAANUJOC.C'. ' •P. 4

POR T WASHINGTON

197 8 - 1987 : Actua l 198 8 - 1997 : Projecte d Annua l S0 2

Yea r 7 8 7 9 8 0 8 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 8 5 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 9 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 5 9 6 9 7 Capacit y

Facto r (% ) 39. 6 40. 4 37. 6 35. 9 29. 0 27. 5 26. 6
_ 17. 0 11. 4 9. 8 8 8 1 0 1 2 1 5 "•1 6 2 0 2 3 2 4 2 7 . Emission s [100 0 tons ] 4 1 4 1 4 2 3 8 2 6 2 5 2 3 1 6 9 6 4 4 5 6 7 8 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 #•*
.
#### Jacob Reines et al., Appellants, *v.*Davis Berkman, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment of the Municipal Court, fourth district, borough of Manhattan, dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff.

Louis Goldberg, for appellants.

Ho one appearing for respondent.

Freedman, P. J.

The guaranty upon which the defendant was sued must, under all the circumstances, be construed to be one *794guaranteeing the collectibility of the accounts therein referred to. That being so, the-"plaintiffs were bound to prove that thé parties liable upon such accounts are not solvent, and that their liability cannot be enforced by due process of law. This the plaintiffs failed to do, ‘and consequently their' complaint was properly- dismissed.

MacLeah and Leveetritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.
#### § 230.4 No new evidence.

Evidence that was not previously submitted to the Board as part of written testimony or at a hearing or in response to a specific request for evidence from the Board shall not be submitted as part of a request for reconsideration or a response to a request, except where the party demonstrates, through clear and convincing evidence, that the evidence was not available to that party in the exercise of reasonable diligence prior to the submission of written testimony or prior to the hearing.
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Year

HFC Global Emission (MtCO

2-eq)

Velders(2009)

NOAA obs, prelim

Velders (2009)

NOAA obs

HFC-134a

HFC sum

(134a, 152a, 125, 143a, 32, 365mfc)

Note: NOAA data for HFC-134a are based on the extension of a 

published record.

NOAA data for other HFCs are unpublished and preliminary, 

provided courtesy of S. Montzka, NOAA.
#### § 386.1 General.

This part 386 adjusts the rates of royalties payable under the statutory license for the secondary transmission of broadcast stations under 17 U.S.C. 119.
* 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. 96-20845 Summary Calendar

RALPH W. FOWLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JAMES A. LYNAUGH, ET AL., Defendants, LEONARD D. ELLIS, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-93-2516

- - - - - - - - - - April 30, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ralph W. Fowler, TDCJ # 456273, has filed a motion for proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his civil rightsNo. 96-20845 - 2 -

** Fowler also will be required to make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to his account. See § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of Fowler is directed to forward payments from his account to the clerk of the district court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. Id
. complaint. Fowler’s motion for IFP is GRANTED and an initial partial filing fee of $35.14 is assessed. ** Fowler argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Ellis. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the reasons stated by the district court. Fowler v. Lynaugh , No. H-93-2516 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 1996). MOTION GRANTED. AFFIRMED.