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

<ARTICLE>                                  5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-1-1999
<CASH>                                           12,156
<SECURITIES>                                     62,844
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7,802
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                     107,968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                195,160
<PP&E>                                          155,246
<DEPRECIATION>                                   91,298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  269,063
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            34,270
<BONDS>                                          61,556
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                      20,000
<COMMON>                                             58
<OTHER-SE>                                      134,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    269,063
<SALES>                                          83,407
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 83,407
<CGS>                                            61,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    28,734
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     86
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (7,250)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (2,973)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (4,277)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (4,277)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.26)



</TABLE>
STATE OF MICHIGAN

GOVERNOR 

## AUG 1 6 

## 2013

-- I .... j**~** August 9 , 2013 Dr. Susan Hedman, Regiona l Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard (R-19J) Chicago , Illinois 60604-3590 Dear Dr. Hedman : 

# DE

# ttl DAN WYANT D I RECTOR

Thank you for the opportunity to address the issue of waste i ncinerators in the state of Michigan . The United States Environmenta l Protection Age n cy ( USEPA) promulgated revised Emission Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) on October.6 .. 200. 9 . The__ . Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is p leased to provide you with this letter informing you that there are no HMIWI units , as def ined by 40 CFR 

### § 60 . 51 c, curreotly operating in Michigan . Therefore , the MDEQ requests the USEPA's approva l of this negative declaration . If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Robert Irvine , Air Quality Division, at 517-373-7042 ; irviner@michigan.gov; or MDEQ , P.O . Box 30260, Lansing, Michigan 48909 - 7760; or you may contact me .

Dan Wyant Director 517-373-7917 cc : Ms . Margaret Sieffert, USEPA, Region 5 Mr. Jim Sygo, Deputy Director, MDEQ Mr. Vince Hellwig, MDEQ Mr. Robert Irvine, MDEQ

CO NSTITUT IO N HALL • 525 WE S T ALL E G AN ST R EET • P . O . B OX 30473 • LANS ING , M I CH I GAN 48 90 9- 7973 www .mi c h igan . gov/ d e q • (8 00) 662 -9278
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA JOSEFINA VALLES SANCHEZ ; FERNANDO MONTES PAVON,

Petitioners,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting

Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 11

- 73253

Agency Nos. A096

- 349

- 886

A096

- 349

- 887

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 11, 2019 **

Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN , and TALLMAN , Circuit Judges.

Maria Josefina Valles Sanchez and Fernando Montes Pavon, natives and

citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 15 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an a buse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We grant the petition

for review and remand.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as

untimely. With respect to pe titioners’ claim that multiple former attorneys

provided ineffective assistance, the BIA failed to consider petitioners’ contentions

that the notario and attorney who prepared their 2003 asylum and cancellation of

removal applications provided false inform ation in the applications and failed to

solicit information concerning the asylum claim. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales , 405

F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that the BIA is not free to ignore

arguments raised by a petitioner). The BIA’s failure to add ress these contentions

undermines its grounds for rejecting equitable tolling of the filing deadline because

the BIA’s analysis relies on dates and other information in those applications that

petitioners allege were falsely provided due to the ineffective assistance. See

Bonilla , 840 F.3d at 582 (holding that equitable tolling is available to a petitioner

who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as

petitioner exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

T he BIA further failed to explain its conclusion that petitioners, having

alleged that the female petitioner was persecuted by a local political figure, and

was rebuffed when she sought assistance from local authorities, did not present a3

colorable asylum c laim. See Lin v. Ashcroft , 377 F.3d 1014, 1027 (9th Cir. 2004)

( in assessing whether a petitioner was prejudiced by incompetent counsel, this

court “must consider the underlying merits of the case to come to a tentative

conclusion as to whether [the petit ioner’s] claim, if prop erly presented, would be

viable ”)

.

Accordingly, we remand for the BIA to reassess its tolling and prejudice

determinations.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3561

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a shorter recovery 

period for the depreciation of certain improvements to retail space. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2003

Mr. SHAW 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 provide 

a shorter recovery period for the depreciation of certain 

improvements to retail space.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RECOVERY PERIOD FOR DEPRECIATION OF 

4 CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO RETAIL SPACE. 

5 (a) 10-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD.—Subparagraph 

6 (D) of section 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

7 1986 (relating to 10-year property) is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (i), by striking the period at 

9 the end of clause (ii) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by adding 

10 at the end the following new clause: 
2

•HR 3561 IH 

1 ‘‘(iii) any qualified retail improvement 

2 property.’’. 

3 (b) QUALIFIED RETAIL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY.—

4 Subsection (e) of section 168 of such Code is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(6) QUALIFIED RETAIL IMPROVEMENT PROP7 ERTY.—

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified 

9 retail improvement property’ means any im10 provement to an interior portion of a building 

11 which is nonresidential real property if—

12 ‘‘(i) such portion is open to the gen13 eral public and is used in the trade or 

14 business of selling tangible personal prop15 erty or services to the general public; and 

16 ‘‘(ii) such improvement is placed in 

17 service more than 3 years after the date 

18 the building was first placed in service. 

19 ‘‘(B) CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS NOT IN20 CLUDED.—Such term shall not include any im21 provement for which the expenditure is attrib22 utable to—

23 ‘‘(i) the enlargement of the building, 

24 ‘‘(ii) any elevator or escalator, or 
3

•HR 3561 IH 

1 ‘‘(iii) the internal structural frame2 work of the building.’’. 

3 (c) REQUIREMENT TO USE STRAIGHT LINE METH4 OD.—Paragraph (3) of section 168(b) of such Code is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara6 graph: 

7 ‘‘(G) Qualified retail improvement property 

8 described in subsection (e)(6).’’. 

9 (d) ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM.—The table contained in 

10 section 168(g)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by inserting 

11 after the item relating to subparagraph (D)(ii) the fol12 lowing new item:

‘‘(D)(iii) ................................................................................. 10’’.

13 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to qualified retail improvement 

15 property placed in service after September 11, 2004.

Æ
U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

DESIGNATION OF AGENT FOR 

SERVICE OF NOTICE, PROCESS, ORDERS 

DECISIONS, OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS 

US Department of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

Chief Documentary Services Division 

Department of Transportation 

Washington. D. C. 20590 

ATTENTION: DOCKET SECTION. C-55 

__ __,A'-'-n,_,.g:..:u:.:.i:.:.:lla::....:....:A::..:.ir....::S::..:::e::...rv!:.!i.=cce==s::L,..::LT.:...:D::::..__---', having its principal office at C.J Lloyd Airport, P.O. Box 559, 

(Name of Company. please print) 

the Valley, Anguilla, BVI 

(Address) 

hereby designates, pursuant to section 46103 and 41302 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, as amended, the 

person named below as its Agent upon service of all notice, process, all orders, decisions, and 

requirements of the Department of Transportation may be made for and on behalf of said carrier, 

hereby canceling all previous designations of agents made by it to the FAA, DOT or Board. The person 

named below is authorized to sign for and agree to the Operations Specifications, issued to the above 

mentioned company, governing flight operations into the United States. 

Name of Agent: Luis A. Irizarry, L. A. Irizarry & Associates, Inc. 

(Please Print) 

Address: -----'P:...;O~B:.:::o:!!.x..::3:.:..7=21=:.;7~,..::S:!::a.!.!n.:;Ju:::.:a=.:n.:..,..!.P..::u:.:::e.:..:rt:!::o~R~i:=::co=-0;:::;0:::..:9~3::..:;7....:-0:::.:2:..::1:..:.7 _______ _ 

Phone Number: (787) 752-7621 Fax Number: (787) 276-3846 

ned his name and also his initials in the followings~: 

Name:, _ __,~p....=-~~---.....Jo:::'----f------- (lnitials)_JI';i_~z._ __ _ 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Anguilla Air Services, LTD has caused these presents to be 

(Name of Company) 

Signed in its name by, ---=C::::a:.:..r=--1 T.:....:h..:..:o::..:m..:.:..::.a::..s _______ , President of said company, and to be 

(Please Print) 

attested under its corporate seal by Anguilla Air Services, LTD 

10th day of October, 2012. 

ATTEST: -"""~t-t>'--- (Secretary or other officer) 

.::C:!::.a!..!ri....:Th..!..!.!:o:!..!m'-"a"--=s'------ on this 

(Secretary or other Title) 

(President)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30632

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DONALD SAMPSON, also known as Yune Sampson,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:19-CV-2368

USDC No. 2:14-CR-184-1 

Before HAYNES, GRAVES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donald Sampson, federal prisoner # 73174-379, moves for a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion 

challenging his guilty plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride. He contends that (1) he 

received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to move 

for a bill of particulars or object to the inclusion of certain prior state felony 

* 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

June 2, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30632 Document: 00515436956 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2020
No. 19-30632

2

convictions in his criminal history computation, and (2) the district court erred 

by denying § 2255 relief without an evidentiary hearing. In addition, Sampson 

moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal and for the 

appointment of counsel in connection with his COA motion.

To obtain a COA to appeal the denial of § 2255 relief, Sampson must 

make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). To meet that burden, he must show that “reasonable jurists would 

find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or 

wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Sampson fails to make the requisite showing to obtain a COA, and his 

motion for a COA is accordingly denied. We construe Sampson’s motion for a 

COA with respect to the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing as a 

direct appeal of that issue, see Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 

2016), and affirm. Additionally, we deny Sampson’s motion to appoint counsel 

in relation to his COA motion. See Fifth Circuit Plan for Representation under 

the Criminal Justice Act, § 3(B). Finally, because a COA will not issue, we 

deny Sampson’s motion for leave to appeal IFP as moot.

MOTION FOR COA DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL DENIED; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IFP 

DENIED AS MOOT.

 Case: 19-30632 Document: 00515436956 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2020
STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

VAN HOPKINS

NO. 2023 KW 1246

FEBRUARY 27, 2024

In Re: Van Hopkins, applying for supervisory writs, 20th

Judicial District Court, Parish of West Feliciana, No. 

22- WFLN- 237. 

BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, JJ. 

WRIT GRANTED. The conduct alleged against the defendant

does not provide a legal basis for the offense charged. See

State v. DeJesus, 94- 0261 ( La. 9/ 16/ 94), 642 So. 2d 854, 855 ( per

curiam). See also State v. Robinson, 2020- 01389 ( La. 3/ 9/ 21), 

312 So. 3d 255, 256 ( per curiam). Accordingly, the district

court erred by not. ordering the bill of information quashed. 

The ruling denying the motion to quash is reversed, the motion

is granted, and this matter is remanded to the district court

for further proceedings. 

Penzato, J., dissents and would deny the writ. Here, the

defense argues the failure to inform law enforcement of Marshall

Rayburn' s physical location does not rise to the level of

criminal conduct. As a general rule, a motion to quash does not

serve as a vehicle for asserting defenses to the merits of the

charges against the defendant. See State v. Faggin, 2014- 0326

La. 10/ 24/ 14), 150 So. 3d 298, 299 ( per curiam); State v. 

Thomas, 2012- 0470 ( La. App. lst Cir. 11/ 14/ 12), 111 So. 3d 386, 

388- 89 ( The question of the factual guilt or innocence of the

defendant is not raised by the motion to quash). An exception

to this general rule exists in cases where the State has alleged

or admitted facts under which a lawful conviction for the

charged offense is not possible. State v. Clark, 2012- 1296 ( La. 

5/ 7/ 13), 117 So. 3d. 1246, 1249 ( per curiam). The indictment

alleges criminal negligence and charges an offense which is

punishable under a valid statute. The Defendant did not file a

motion for a bill of particulars and there has been no

stipulation of facts by the State. Therefore, the district

court was not presented with a purely legal question. I would

find that the district court did not err by denying the motion

to quash. 

OURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

PUTY CLERKOFCOURT

FOR THE COURT
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                        National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                        May 22, 2000.                    

*Time:*                        8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                        To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                        Ramada Inn Rockville, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                        Aftab A. Ansari, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institutes of                               ( print page 25340)                            Health, NIAMS, Natcher Bldg., Room 5As25N, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4952.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: April 21, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-10787  Filed 4-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 1250.106 Conduct of investigations. ( a ) *Periodic compliance reviews.* The responsible NASA official or his designee shall from time to time review the practices of recipients to determine whether they are complying with this part.
( b ) *Complaints.* Any person who believes himself or any specific class of individuals to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by this part may by himself or by a representative file with the Principal Compliance Officer or his designee a written complaint. A complaint must be filed not later than 90 days from the date of the alleged discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by the Principal Compliance Officer or his designee.
( c ) *Investigations.* The Principal Compliance Officer or his designee will make a prompt investigation whenever a compliance review, report, complaint, or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply with this part. The investigation should include, where appropriate, a review of the pertinent practices and policies of the recipient, the circumstances under which the possible noncompliance with this part occurred, and other factors relevant to a determination as to whether the recipient has failed to comply with this part.
( d ) *Resolution of matters.* ( 1 ) If an investigation pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section indicates a failure to comply with this part, the Principal Compliance Officer or his designee will so inform the recipient and the matter will be resolved by informal means whenever possible. If it has been determined that the matter cannot be resolved by informal means, action will be taken as provided for in § 1250.107.
( 2 ) If an investigation does not warrant action pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the responsible NASA official or his designee will so inform the recipient and the complainant, if any, in writing.
( e ) *Intimidatory or retaliatory acts prohibited.* No recipient or other person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 601 of the Act or this part, or because he has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this part. The identity of complainants shall be kept confidential except to the extent necessary to carry out the purposes of this part, including the conduct of any investigation, hearing, or judicial proceeding arising thereunder.
§ 1252.409 Alternate funds disbursal procedure. ( a ) When NASA withholds funds from a recipient under these regulations, the Administrator may disburse the withheld funds directly to an alternate recipient.
( b ) The Administrator will require any alternate recipient to demonstrate: ( 1 ) The ability to comply with these regulations; and
( 2 ) The ability to achieve the goals of the Federal statute authorizing the Federal financial assistance.
[50 FR 13311, Apr. 4, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 51352, Aug. 26, 2003]
April 3, 2015

To: expartecommunications@hq.doe.gov (sent via email)

Re: Memorandum Summarizing Ex Parte Communication

On March 30, 2015, representatives of the American Gas Association (AGA) met with officials and staff 

of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to discuss the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on 

minimum energy efficiency standards for residential natural gas furnaces. The purpose of the meeting 

was to reiterate concerns raised by AGA at the March 27th public hearing on the proposed rule held at 

DOE headquarters. AGA’s concerns are described in the summary statement submitted to DOE in 

advance of the March 27th hearing, and are attached here.

The following persons attended the meeting:

Representing the Department of Energy

 Franklin Orr

 David Danielson

 Kathleen Hogan

 Dan Cohen

 Jonathan Levy

Representing the American Gas Association

 David McCurdy

 Kathryn Clay

Documents reviewed and discussed at the meeting are attached.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kathryn Clay

Kathryn Clay | Vice President, Policy Strategy

American Gas Association

400 N. Capitol St., NW | Washington, DC | 20001

P: 202-824-7122 | F: 202-824-9125 | kclay@aga.org