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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial
statements together with the related footnotes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          24,076
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,053
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     50,214
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,744
<PP&E>                                         180,292
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 587,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,293
<BONDS>                                        554,224
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,164)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   587,909
<SALES>                                         46,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,514
<CGS>                                           30,279
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,374
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,137)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,098)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,039)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,039)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40797

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTIS RYAN MILLER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CR-347-2

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Artis Ryan Miller, federal prisoner # 37382-177, was convicted by a jury 

of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1,000 kilograms 

of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute in excess of 

100 kilograms of marijuana. He moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

(IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

motion, in which he sought a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the 

 

* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 15, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40797 Document: 00514349378 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2018
No. 17-40797

2

Sentencing Guidelines. Miller argues that the district court erred by failing to 

correctly determine drug quantity at his original sentencing and should not 

have relied upon that erroneous determination to deny his § 3582(c)(2) motion. 

He also argues that the district court erred by denying relief based upon the 

determination that he obstructed justice, which was erroneous when made at 

his original sentencing.

By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Miller challenges the district court’s 

certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into a litigant’s good 

faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their 

merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th 

Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Miller’s challenge to issues that were resolved at his original sentencing

hearing lacks merit, as issues that relate to original sentencing determinations 

may not be relitigated in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v. Evans, 

587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2009). As the district court’s decision reflects 

consideration of Miller’s motion and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the denial 

of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Whitebird, 

55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

This appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue. See Howard, 707 F.2d 

at 220. Miller’s IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as 

frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-40797 Document: 00514349378 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2018
§ 1261.107 Evidence in support of claim. ( a ) *General.* In addition to the information required on NASA Form 1204, and any other evidence required by the Administrator or designee, the claimant will furnish the following evidence when relevant: ( 1 ) A corroborating statement from the claimant's supervisor or other person or persons having personal knowledge of the facts concerning the claim.
( 2 ) A statement of any property recovered or replaced in kind.
( 3 ) An itemized bill of repair for property which has been repaired, or one or more written estimates of the cost of repairs from competent persons if the property is repairable but has not been repaired.
( b ) *Specific classes of claims.* Claims of the following types shall also be accompanied with specific and detailed evidence as indicated: ( 1 ) *Theft, burglary, etc.* A statement describing in detail the location where the loss occurred and the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss, including supporting documentation, e.g., a police report.
( 2 ) *Transportation losses.* A copy of orders authorizing the travel, transportation or shipment, or a certificate explaining the absence of such orders and stating their substance; all bills of lading and inventories of property shipped; and a statement indicating the condition of the property when turned over to the carrier and when received from the carrier.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-017-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
§ 14.05 Allowance fees and expenses. ( a ) Awards will be based on rates customarily charged by persons engaged in the business of acting as attorneys, agents, and expert witnesses, even if the services were made available without charge or at a reduced rate to the applicant.
( b ) No award for the fee of an attorney or agent under this part may exceed $125 per hour, or such rate as prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 504. No award to compensate an expert witness may exceed the highest rate at which the agency pays expert witnesses. However, an award may also include the reasonable expenses of the attorney, agent, or witness as a separate item, if the attorney, agent, or witness ordinarily charges clients separately for such expenses.
( c ) In determining the reasonableness of the fee sought for an attorney, agent, or expert witness, the ALJ or adjudicative officer shall consider the following: ( 1 ) If the attorney, agent, or witness is in private practice, his or her customary fee for similar services, or if an employee of the applicant, the fully allocated cost of the services;
( 2 ) The prevailing rate for similar services in the community in which the attorney, agent, or witness ordinarily performs services;
( 3 ) The time actually spent in the representation of the applicant;
( 4 ) The time reasonably spent in light of the difficulty or complexity of the issues in the proceeding; and
( 5 ) Such other factors as may bear on the value of the services provided.
( d ) The reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, project, or similar matter prepared on behalf of a party may be awarded, to the extent that the charge for the service does not exceed the prevailing rate for similar services, and the study or other matter was necessary for preparation of the applicant's case.
( e ) Fees may be awarded only for work performed after the issuance of a complaint, or in the Default Adjudicative Process for a protest or contract dispute under part 17 of this chapter and the AMS.
[Amdt. 13-18, 53 FR 34655, Sept. 7, 1988, as amended by Amdt. 14-1, 55 FR 15131, Apr. 20, 1990; Amdt. 14-03, 64 FR 32935, June 18, 1999]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         196
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               196
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       694,537
<OTHER-SE>                                     (694,341)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   196
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
Areas Closed to

Target Shooting 

Alternatives A, B, C, & D

Maps 102, 103, 104 and 105

Roundup ^_

^_Pompeys 

Pillar

Billings^_^

_^Columbus

Bridger_^

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP / EIS

^

^ Roundup ^_

^_^Pompeys

 Pillar

Billings^_^

_^Columbus

Bridger_^

^

^

^

^^_Pompeys

 Pillar

Billings_^^

_^Columbus

Bridger^_

^

^

Harlowton

^

Roundup

^

_^

^_

^

Pompeys Pillar

^_Pompeys

 Pillar

Billings

Billings^_^

Columbus

^_ Columbus

Bridger

Bridger_^

^

^

A

B

ee

vivi

tt

Legend

aa

nn

rr

ee

tt

ll

AA

CD

ee

vivi

tt

aa

nn

rr

ee

tt

ll

AA

Montana/Wyoming State Border

Billings Field Office Planning Area

Areas Closed to Target Shooting

^ Areas Closed to Target Shooting ^_ Towns

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

Division of State Lands

National Park Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

Water

Private 

T9S

Montana 

Montana Wyoming Wyoming

Montana Montana 

 Wyoming Wyoming

23

00

11

pp

aa

MM

45

00

11

pp

aa

MM

Wyoming

Location Map

Montana

Billings

Field 

Office

Ü

Map generated by the Billings Field Office in July 2011

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of

Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. 

This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.

^_

^_

^_
# Official Journal L 425/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 425 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6426 November 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 425

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6426 November 2021

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2021/2038 of amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2021 | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2021/2038 of amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2021

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
§ 133.23 Knowledge and skill. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the applicant, or the chief pilot designated in accordance with § 133.21(b), must demonstrate to the Administrator satisfactory knowledge and skill regarding rotorcraft external-load operations as set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) The test of knowledge (which may be oral or written, at the option of the applicant) covers the following subjects: ( 1 ) Steps to be taken before starting operations, including a survey of the flight area.
( 2 ) Proper method of loading, rigging, or attaching the external load.
( 3 ) Performance capabilities, under approved operating procedures and limitations, of the rotorcraft to be used.
( 4 ) Proper instructions of flight crew and ground workers.
( 5 ) Appropriate rotorcraft-load combination flight manual.
( c ) The test of skill requires appropriate maneuvers for each class requested. The appropriate maneuvers for each load class must be demonstrated in the rotorcraft prescribed in § 133.19. ( 1 ) Takeoffs and landings.
( 2 ) Demonstration of directional control while hovering.
( 3 ) Acceleration from a hover.
( 4 ) Flight at operational airspeeds.
( 5 ) Approaches to landing or working area.
( 6 ) Maneuvering the external load into the release position.
( 7 ) Demonstration of winch operation, if a winch is installed to hoist the external load.
( d ) Compliance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section need not be shown if the Administrator finds, on the basis of the applicant's (or his designated chief pilot's) previous experience and safety record in rotorcraft external-load operations, that his knowledge and skill are adequate.
[Doc. No. 1529, 29 FR 603, Jan. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 133-9, 51 FR 40707, Nov. 7, 1986]
230621 EXHIBIT B. EXHIBIT COVER SHEET VERSION JUNE 21, 2023 1

EXHIBIT B1

PARTY EXHIBIT COVER SHEET

Name of Party

Does the Party intend to offer evidence?

Docket Entry No. for Party Exhibit List

Exhibit Identifier2 Docket Entry No. of Exhibit Is there a pending request to seal

this Exhibit?

Pursuant to Bankruptcy Local Rule 9037-1(a), parties and counsel are solely responsible for 

redacting the personal identifiers enumerated in Fed. R. Bank. P. 9037(a).

1 This Party Exhibit Cover Sheet must be attached to a party-in-interest’s Informative 

Motion as Exhibit B.

2 Each Exhibit should be named in sequential party-identified numbering (e.g., “FOMB 

Ex. 1” or “UCC Ex. A”). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24624-2 Filed:06/21/23 Entered:06/21/23 12:07:59 Desc:

Exhibit B - PARTY EXHIBIT COVER SHEET Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000797662
<NAME>                        BIORELEASE CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                       1
<CASH>                                            2,673
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                      16,366
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 19,039
<PP&E>                                           80,201
<DEPRECIATION>                                   75,509
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   23,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            12,568
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        121,242
<OTHER-SE>                                     (117,279)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     23,731
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      0
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5,637
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (5,637)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (5,637)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.00



</TABLE>
H. R. 3724

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend section 220 of the National Housing Act to make a technical correction

to restore allowable increases in the maximum mortgage limits for FHA-insured

mortgages for multifamily housing projects to cover increased costs of installing

a solar energy system or residential energy conservation measures.

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 ‘‘Energy Efficient Housing Technical Correction Act’’.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

Section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii)(V) of the National Housing Act (12

U.S.C. 1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)(V)) is amended by striking ‘‘with respect

to rehabilitation projects involving not more than five family units,’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-51058

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PABLO AGUILAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-98-CR-788-ALL

May 19, 1999

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pablo Aguilar appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea

conviction for impersonating an immigration officer, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 912. Aguilar contends that the district court

failed to give acceptable reasons justifying its upward departure

and that the departure was unreasonable. The decision to depart2

from the Sentencing Guidelines is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

United States v. McKenzie , 991 F.2d 203, 204 (5th Cir. 1993). An

upward departure will be affirmed if the district court offers

acceptable reasons for the departure and the departure is

reasonable. U

nited States v. Lambert

, 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir.

1993) (en banc).

The district court adequately articulated its reasons for the

upward departure by discussing Aguilar’s prior criminal activities

and its opinion that the applicable guideline range did not

a dequately reflect the seriousness and extent of his past cri mes

and did not address his recidivist tendencies. U nited States v.

Ashburn

, 38 F.3d 803, 809 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); United States

v. Chappell

, 6 F.3d 1095, 1102 (5th Cir. 1993); U nited States v.

Laury

, 985 F.2d 1293, 1310 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court

departed upward on this basis from the 18 to 24 month guideline to

the 36 month statutory maximum, indicating along the way that it

felt 40 months would be appropriate. Although the district court

did not expressly examine each intervening guideline category, its

detailed explanation of why it felt a 12 month upward departure was

called for on the foregoing bases makes it evident why it rejected

the three possible lower levels of upward departure (3 months each)

calculated on such a basis. Under the circumstances, this was

adequate. McKenzie at 205. As we said in Ashburn :

“The district court did not expre ssly examine each

i ntervening criminal history category. However, we do

not require the distr ict court to go through such a

‘ritualistic exercise’ where, as here, it is evident from

the stated grounds for departure why the bypassed

criminal history categories were inadequate.” Id . at3

809.

With respect to the reasonableness of the departure, the

district court has wide discretion in determining the extent of the

departure. U

nited States v. Moore , 997 F.2d 30, 37 (5th Cir.

1993). We have reviewed the record and the briefs on appeal and

find that the upward departure was not unreasonable. Aguilar’s

sentence is

AFFIRMED.