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

[House Report 107-1]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                      107-1

======================================================================

 
 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 554, RAIL PASSENGER DISASTER 
                     FAMILY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2001

                                _______
                                

 February 13, 2001.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Reynolds, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 36]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 36, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 554, 
the Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance Act of 2001, 
under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general 
debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
    The rule provides that the bill shall be open for amendment 
by section. The rule further allows the chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole to accord priority in recognition to 
those members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record.
    Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.

                                

```
#### § 778.310 Fixed sum for varying amounts of overtime.

A premium in the form of a lump sum which is paid for work performed during overtime hours without regard to the number of overtime hours worked does not qualify as an overtime premium even though the amount of money may be equal to or greater than the sum owed on a per hour basis. For example, an agreement that provides for the payment of a flat sum of $75 to employees who work on Sunday does not provide a premium which will qualify as an overtime premium, even though the employee's straight time rate is $5 an hour and the employee always works less than 10 hours on Sunday. Likewise, where an agreement provides for the payment for work on Sunday of either the flat sum of $75 or time and one-half the employee's regular rate for all hours worked on Sunday, whichever is greater, the $75 guaranteed payment is not an overtime premium. The reason for this is clear. If the rule were otherwise, an employer desiring to pay an employee a fixed salary regardless of the number of hours worked in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard could merely label as overtime pay a fixed portion of such salary sufficient to take care of compensation for the maximum number of hours that would be worked. The Congressional purpose to effectuate a maximum hours standard by placing a penalty upon the performance of excessive overtime work would thus be defeated. For this reason, where extra compensation is paid in the form of a lump sum for work performed in overtime hours, it must be included in the regular rate and may not be credited against statutory overtime compensation due.

[46 FR 7314, Jan. 23, 1981]
# Figure 1 Number of Persons 65+

Figure 1:  Number of Persons 65+, 

1900 to 2060 (numbers in millions)

Year (as of July 1)

# Figure 2 Marital Status

Figure 2: Marital Status of Persons 65+, 2015

# Figure 3 Living Arrangements

# Figure 4 State Map Percent 65+

http://www.agid.acl.gov/

# Figure 5 State Map Increase 65+

http://www.agid.acl.gov/

# Figure 6 Population by State

http://www.agid.acl.gov/

# Figure 7F Family Income

Family Households 65+ Householder, 2014

# Figure 7P Personal Income

Persons 65+ Reporting Income, 2014

# Figure 8 Health Insurance

Figure 8: Percentage of Persons 65+ by type of Health Insurance Coverage, 2014

# Figure 9 Disability

Figure 9: Percentage of Persons 65+

with a disability, 2014

# image1.png

# image2.png
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 108 (Monday, June 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13939]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel: National Academic Centers of Excellence on Youth 
Violence, PA# 00043

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting.
    Name: Disease, Disability and Injury Prevention and Control 
Special Emphasis Panel: National Academic Centers of Excellence on 
Youth Violence, PA# 00043.
    Times and Dates: 8 a.m.-8:45 a.m. July 10, 2000 (Open); 8:45 
a.m.-5:30 p.m. July 10, 2000 (Closed); 8 a.m.-5:30 p.m. July 11, 
2000 (Closed).
    Place: Crowne Plaza Hotel, Atlanta Airport Virginia Avenue, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30344. Telephone 404/768-6660.
    Status: Portions of the meeting will be closed to the public in 
accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and (6), 
Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Associate Director for 
Management and Operations, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to 
Program Announcement 00043.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Enrique Nieves, Jr., M.S. 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for 
Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, 
2939 Flowers Road, Vanderbilt Building, Room 2012, m/s K60, 
Atlanta, GA 30341. Telephone 770/488-1281, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9affe2f4a8daf9fef9b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="22475a4c10624146410c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for the both the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: May 30, 2000.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 00-13939 Filed 6-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

LESTER LEONARD LOPEZ, AKA Lester

Lopez,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 10409

D.C. No. 4:16

- cr

- 01966

- JGZ

- JR

- 2

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted Ju ly 1 5 , 2019 **

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN

, and CLIFTON , Circuit Judges.

Lester Leonard Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the sentence of 10 months and 33 days imposed upon revocation of

probation . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lopez challenges the 33

- day official detention adjustment applied by the

* 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

JUL 17 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 10409

district court pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(e). His arguments lack merit

. Contrary

to Lopez’s contention, section 7B1.3(e) is not in conflict with 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)

.

The former is a Gu idelines policy statement that the district court is required to

consider in imposing a revocation sentence, s ee 18 U.S.C. § 35 53(a)(4)(B) , while

the latter is a directive to the Attorney General that does not apply at sentencing.

See United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329 , 333

- 34 (1992)

. Moreover, section

7B1.3(e) does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because revoked

probationers are not similarly situated to defendants being sentenced for their

underlying conviction for the first time. See May ner v. Callahan , 873 F.2d 1300,

1301 (9th Cir. 1989) ( “The e qual p rotection c lause directs that all persons similarly

circumstanced shall be treated alike

. ”) (internal quotations omitted) )

.

AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 150

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 150.510 How must tested emergency equipment be operated?

The equipment must be operated under the operating instructions of the equipment's manufacturer when tests or inspections include operational testing of emergency equipment.
#### § 109.07 Anchorages under Ports and Waterways Safety Act.

The provisions of section 4 (a) and (b) of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act as delegated to the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard in Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, authorize the Commandant to specify times of movement within ports and harbors, restrict vessel operations in hazardous areas and under hazardous conditions, and direct the anchoring of vessels. The sections listed in § 110.1a of this subchapter are regulated under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act.

[CGD 3-81-1A, 47 FR 4063, Jan. 28, 1982, as amended by USCG-2003-14505, 68 FR 9535, Feb. 28, 2003]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

MANSFIELD HELIFLIGHT, INC. Complainant, 

### v. CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) FAA Docket

### No. 16-14-06

ORDER 

### On August 21, 2014, counsel for Respondent City ofBurlington, Vermont filed an unopposed motion for an extension oftime in which to file an Answer, or in the alternative a Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, on behalfofRespondent inthe above-captioned proceeding. The Answer, or in the alternative a Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Sunnnary Judgment, was due on September 3, 2014. The Motion notes that the request for an extension of time "is not being made to delay the proceeding" but that "Complainant has raised numerous issues that require careful analysis and proper responses." It 

### adds that the "undersigned, who has a number ofpreexisting commitments, hasjust been retained to represent the Respondent in this investigation and needs sufficient time to work with Burlington Airport and City staff to gather all relevant evidence." Finally, the Motion states that on August 19, 2014, Respondent counsel contacted counsel for the Complainant, who advised that the Complainant would not oppose the extensionrequest. Under 14 C.F.R. § 16.11, the Federal Aviation Administration may grant extensions of time "where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete hearing ofmatters before the agency." Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 

### Respondent's Unopposed Motion ofthe City ofBurlington, Vermont for an Extension ofTime is granted.2

The Respondent may file its Answer, or inthe alternative a Motionto Dismiss and/orMotion for Summary Judgment, on orbefore October 3, 2014.

Randall Fiertz Director Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis 

# cr· c 

# (1. Date Issued

__ 

### ._··_.,_;;_~·_(-+·_·

### __ _3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

## c_'rlr'-" I HEREBY CERTIFYthat on September,

__ ) , 2014, I causedto be placed inthe United States mail (first class mail, postageprepaid) orpersonally delivered, a true copy ofthe foregoing document addressed to: Attorney for Complainant: Benjamin H. Klein, Esq. The Klein Law Firm, LLC 61 Broadway, Suite 2125 New York, NY 10006 bklein@thekleinfirm.com Attorneys for Respondent: Gregg Myer, Esq. City ofBurlington City Attorney's Office 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Email: gmeyer@burlingtonvt.gov Phone: 802-865-7121 Fax: 802-865-7123 William F. Ellis, Esq. McNeil, Leddy & SheabanP.C. 271 South Union Street Burlington, VT 0540I Email: wellis@mcneilvt.com Phone: 802-863-4531 Fax: 802-863-1743
Pablo 

### 0.Noesch, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 1875 Eye Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com Phone: 202-879-4000 Fax: 202-393-2866FAA Part 16 Proceedings Docket (internal mail)
Office ofAirport Compliance, AC0-100 (internal mail) 

# (];

;. 

### . 

# . ·. I/ ,-... 

### ~'



# .
**~a.i!i?t.lY[A}\-~-·/** ClaudiaRoberts Airports and Environmental LawDivision Office ofChiefCounsel, FAA 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      42,662,943
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      23,262,788
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            20,000,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                392,909,564
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    797,456,535
<ALLOWANCE>                               (11,972,775)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,334,908,855
<DEPOSITS>                                 983,475,641
<SHORT-TERM>                                97,018,639
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         12,651,468
<LONG-TERM>                                147,713,365
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    22,652,660
<OTHER-SE>                                  71,397,082
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           1,334,908,855
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             15,900,554
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            8,085,267
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               356,103
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            24,341,924
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           7,636,029
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,535,926
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       12,805,998
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              44,931
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             10,228,181
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,567,083
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   6,567,083
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,367,309
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.15
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,270,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               239,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              9,373,710
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                            11,158,126
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   94,265
<RECOVERIES>                                   398,697
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                           11,972,775
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                        11,972,775
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FRANCISCO VALLES,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00061-CR

Appeal from the

409th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20150D02069)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State’s third motion for extension of time within which to file the

brief until March 24, 2019. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE STATE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime E. Esparza, the State’s attorney, prepare the 

State’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before March 24, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7

th day of February, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Exhibit 10(b) 

 

April 11, 2003 

 

Mr. Bruce E. Grout 

c/o Airborne Express, Inc. 

Post Office Box 662 

Seattle, WA 98111 

 

Dear Mr. Grout: 

 

The purpose of this letter is to amend the letter agreement by and among you, Airborne, Inc. and Airborne Express, Inc. dated August 7, 2001 (the“Agreement”) to establish your current base pay and bonus payable for 2002 as the floor for calculating the multiple of base pay and bonus portions of the benefits payable under the Agreement. Accordingly, your Agreement is hereby amendedas follows: 

 

 

“(i) The sum of A and B, multiplied by the number set forth in paragraph (b)(ii) below, where 

 

A is the highest of the following: (1) your annual basesalary at the rate in effect as of your termination, (2) your annual base salary at the highest rate in effect during the two-year period prior to the date of termination, and (3) $260,000, and 

 

B is the amount of any additional compensation, includingany sums awarded under the Executive Incentive Compensation Plan (“EICP”), the Executive Group Incentive Compensation Plan (“EGICP”) and the Management Incentive Compensation Plan (“MICP”) (or any replacement orsuccessor plans), awarded you for the year most recently ended, whether or not fully paid, or, if higher, such additional compensation for the year in which your termination occurred, determined in accordance with the following principles: theadditional compensation under such plans for the year in which your termination occurred shall be (1) for the period up until the end of the most recent quarter-end prior to termination, a pro rata amount of the annual award that would have beenmade assuming (i) to the extent such award is based on an objective performance measure, the actual performance for that period, expressed as a percentage of target for that measure during the period, continued the entire year, and (ii) to theextent the award is based on other factors or if the target performance was not established prior to the applicable quarter-end, the award shall be made by assuming performance for the year equaled the weighted average of percentages of targetperformance achieved for the objective measures for such period, and (2) for the remaining period, a pro rata amount of the annual award that would 

Mr. Bruce E. Grout 

Page Two 

April 11, 2003 

 

have been made assuming performancefor each measure for the year equaled the targets.1 The additional compensation for such year under any replacementor successor to such plans shall be based on comparable principles. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall B be less than $218,215.” 

 

If you agree that this letter correctly sets forth our agreement regarding the amendment of the Agreement, sign and return to the Company the enclosedcopy of this letter and retain your copy for your files. 

 

AIRBORNE, INC.

By
 
/s/ Carl D. Donaway
  
Its
 
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

AIRBORNE EXPRESS, INC.

By
 
/s/ David C. Anderson
  
Its
 
Vice President, General Counsel
    
and Corporate Secretary

 

/s/ Bruce E. Grout
    
Bruce E. Grout
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 00-054] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces an open meeting of the NAC Task Force on International Space Station Operational Readiness (IOR). 

# DATES:

Wednesday, June 7, 2000, 12 p.m.—1 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. 

# ADDRESSES:

NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW, Room 7W31, Washington, DC 20546. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Philip Cleary, Code IH, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001, 202/358-4461. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This meeting will be open to the public up to The seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows: 

—Review the status of the assessment conducted by the IOR Task Force and the Russian Aviation and Space Agency (Utkin) Advisory Expert Council on the Russian investigation of the Proton launch failures of July 5 and October 27, 1999. This assessment includes the corrective action taken to help ensure a successful International Space Station Service Module launch. 

It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the Scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitors register. 

Dated: May 17, 2000. 

Mathew M. Crouch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer,, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

[FR Doc. 00-13350 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
# 6H

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23

- 0439 LVNV FUNDING, LLC,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. TANA TOREN WOEPPEL,

Defendant and Appellant. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Karl K. Rudbach,**  whose name appears next on the list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment. A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED this September 21, 2023.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court
c: Tana Toren Woeppel, tanatorenwoeppel@yahoo.com Brian Anthony Chou, bchou@messerlikramer.com Marcus Sean Boston, mboston@messerlikramer.com Karl K. Rudbach ; karl@ramlowrudbach.com 09/21/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0439