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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4276

To amend the Arms Export Control Act and the Export Administration

Act of 1979 to provide that the export of certain commercial communications satellites and associated equipment be regulated solely under the

Export Administration Act of 1979.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 21, 1994

Ms. HARMAN (for herself and Mr. BERMAN) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Arms Export Control Act and the Export

Administration Act of 1979 to provide that the export

of certain commercial communications satellites and associated equipment be regulated solely under the Export

Administration Act of 1979.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4276 IH

1 SECTION 1. REGULATION OF EXPORT OF CERTAIN COM2 MERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITES

3 AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT UNDER THE

4 EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979.

5 (a) AMENDMENT TO ARMS EXPORT CONTROL

6 ACT.—Subsection (a) of section 38 of the Arms Export

7 Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(a)) is amended—

8 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘In exercising

9 the authorities’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided

10 in paragraph (4), in exercising the authorities’’; and

11 (2) by adding at the end the following new

12 paragraph:

13 ‘‘(4) The export of commercial communications sat14 ellites, including all integral components of such satellites,

15 which are designed for civil applications, including items

16 necessary to achieve the ultimate orbit location of such

17 satellites, and associated ground and test equipment, when

18 exported as part of a satellite system for purposes of

19 launch, shall be regulated only by the Secretary of Com20 merce under the Export Administration Act of 1979.’’.

21 (b) AMENDMENT TO EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT

22 OF 1979.—Section 17 of the Export Administration Act

23 of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2416) is amended by adding at

24 the end the following new subsection:

25 ‘‘(g) REGULATION OF EXPORT OF CERTAIN COM26 MERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITES SOLELY UNDER
3

•HR 4276 IH

1 THIS ACT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law,

2 the export of commercial communications satellites, in3 cluding all integral components of such satellites, which

4 are designed for civil applications, including items nec5 essary to achieve the ultimate orbit location of such sat6 ellites, and associated ground and test equipment, when

7 exported as part of a satellite system for purposes of

8 launch, shall be regulated under this Act. The Secretary,

9 in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Sec10 retary of State, shall prohibit the unauthorized transfer

11 of missile equipment, data, or technology that are compo12 nents of any such satellite which is authorized for

13 export.’’.

14 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub15 sections (a) and (b) shall apply only with respect to the

16 export of satellites on or after the date of the enactment

17 of this Act.

Æ
April 20, 2012

No. 11A998.

#### Ford, as Next Friend of Johnson *v.*Biden, Attorney General of Delaware.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Alito, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-cv-24023-SCOLA/GOODMAN

KENNETH C. GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

POST-DISCOVERY HEARING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

On May 3, 2024, the Undersigned held a Zoom videoconference hearing on the parties’ 

discovery disputes. [ECF Nos. 96; 120; 125; 126]. At the hearing, the Undersigned ordered as 

follows:

By Friday, May 17, 2024, Plaintiff will respond to Defendants’ Interrogatory Nos. 5 

through 13. If it turns out that Plaintiff currently has no facts or information in response to a 

particular contention interrogatory, then Plaintiff will answer that interrogatory by stating that 

reality (e.g., I have no facts, I have no documents, and/or I have no information).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, on May 3, 2024.

Copies furnished to:

The Honorable Robert N. Scola, Jr.

All Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 1 of 1
§ 50-201.601 Requests for exceptions and exemptions. ( a ) ( 1 ) Request for the exception or exemption of a contract or class of contracts from the inclusion or application of one or more of those stipulations required by § 50-201.1 must be made by the head of a contracting agency or department and shall be accompanied with a finding by him setting forth reasons why such inclusion or application will seriously impair the conduct of Government business.
( 2 ) Request for the exception or exemption of a stipulation respecting minimum rates of pay and maximum hours of labor contained in an existing contract must be made jointly by the head of the contracting agency and the contractor and shall be accompanied with a joint finding by them setting forth reasons why such exception or exemption is desired.
( b ) All requests for exceptions or exemptions which relate solely to safety and health standards shall be transmitted directly to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, or, for those pertaining to coal mines, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. All other requests for exceptions or exemptions shall be transmitted to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.
[7 FR 4767, June 26, 1942. Redesignated at 24 FR 10952, Dec. 30, 1959 and amended at 36 FR 288, Jan. 8, 1971; 52 FR 6147, Mar. 2, 1987]
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 19, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01016-CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.E.F., A.F ., T.R.F. AND O.D.F., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429-56599-2016



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, J ustice Evans, and Justice Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright The filing fee, clerk’s record, and reporter’s record in this c ase are past due. By postcard dated September 5, 2018, we notif ied appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. By postcard dated October 2 6, 2018, we notified appellant a second time that the filing fee had not been paid and instructe d appellant to pay the filing fee or risk dismissal of the appeal without further notice. The record was due December 1, 2018. The Collin County Distric t Clerk and the court reporter both informed this Court in writing that payment had n ot been made nor had arrangements to pay been made for either the clerk’s record or the reporter’ s record. In light of this, we notified appellant on December 3, 2018 that the clerk’s record had not b een filed because appellant had not paid or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. On De cember 5, 2018, we notified appellant that the reporter’s r ecord had not been filed due to the failure to pay or make–2– arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. We directed app ellant to provide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and repor ter’s record or to provide written documentation appellant had been found entitled to proceed with out payment of costs within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would resul t in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the fi ling fee, provided the required documentation, or otherwise corres ponded with the Court regardi ng the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we dism iss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

181019F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF S.E.F., A.F., T.R.F. AND O.D.F., CHILDREN

No. 05-18-01016-CV On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429-56599-2016. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Evans and Brown participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

We ORDER that appellee, Oran Daniel Fought III recover his costs, if any , of this appeal from appellant Karen Lynn Whitten f/k/a Karen Lynn Fought.

Judgment entered December 19, 2018.
CONTACT:Mark Lipscomb
                              Vice President, Corporate Communications
                              American Pad & Paper Co.
                              (972) 733-5415

For immediate Release
                              Theresa Schillero
                              Media: Leslie Feldman/Eileen King
                              (212) 850-5600
                              Ken Pieper
                              (972) 663-9390
                              Morgen-Walke Associates

                  American Pad & Paper ANNOUNCES PLANT CLOSING

         DALLAS,  Texas,  November  10, 1998,  -- American  Pad & Paper  Company
(NYSE:AGP)  (AP&P)  announced that its plant in Kosciusko,  Mississippi  will be
closed as part of a previously  announced  restructuring plan, which is designed
to improve customer  service,  better balance  manufacturing  capacity to market
demands and reduce overall manufacturing costs.

         The Kosciusko plant is an AMPAD operation and will be transferring  its
production  capability to other  American Pad & Paper sites.  This plant,  which
employees  approximately 175 people,  will continue operations at reduced levels
through  the end of May 1999.  Eligible  employees  affected  will be provided a
severance  package,  and  the  Company  will be  working  with  the  Mississippi
Employment Training Division to provide a career transition program.

         Commenting on the plant closure,  James W. Swent III,  Chief  Executive
Officer of American  Pad & Paper said,  "I sincerely  regret that some  employee
reductions  are necessary,  but the future of our Company  depends on a strategy
that  provides  greater  efficiency  and a return to  profitable  growth.  These
actions are  necessary  to improve both  service to our  customers,  and move us
closer to our goal of being the lowest cost manufacturer in our industry."

     American  Pad & Paper  Company is a leading  manufacturer  and  marketer of
paper-based  office  products  in  North  America.   Product  offerings  include
envelopes,  writing pads, file folders, machine papers, greeting cards and other
office products.  The key operating  divisions of the company are  Williamhouse,
AMPAD,  and Creative  Card which market  principally  under the  following  Name
Brands: AMPAD,  Century,  Embassy,  Gold Fibre, Huxley,  Karolton,  Kent, Peel &
Seel,  SCM,  Williamhouse  and World Fibre.  Company  revenues in 1997 were $687
million.

         This release  contains  forward-looking  statements  relating to future
results.  Actual  results may differ  significantly  as a result of factors over
which the Company has no control, including the strength of domestic and foreign
economies,  slower than anticipated sales growth,  price and product competition
and changes in raw material costs. Additional information which could affect the
Company's financial results is included in the Company's prospectus on file with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                                                  ###


                                       44
<PAGE>
#### § 302-8.100 What is the policy for extended storage of HHG during assignment to isolated locations in CONUS?

Extended storage of HHG belonging to an employee transferred or a new appointee assigned to an official station at an isolated location in CONUS may be allowed only when it is clearly justified under the conditions in this part and is not primarily for the convenience, or at the request of, the employee or the new appointee.
This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

*Docket Number:*                     99-026. Applicant: Boston University, Boston, MA 02215. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-2010. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 64 FR 63788, November 22, 1999. Order Date: May 24, 1999.                 

*Comments:*                     None received.                     *Decision:*                     Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as the instrument is intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was ordered.                     *Reasons:*                     The foreign instrument is a conventional transmission electron microscope (CTEM) and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring a CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order of the instrument.                 

Frank W. Creel, 

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff. 

[FR Doc. 00-1656 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### § 51-10.149 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 51-10.150, no qualified handicapped person shall, because the agency's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by handicapped persons, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the agency.
No. 11-114.

#### Jarvis *v.*Bolden, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 301-31.4 Must my agency pay transportation and subsistence expenses?

No. Your agency decides when it is appropriate to pay these expenses based on the nature of the threat against your life and/or the life of a member(s) of your immediate family.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7054

In Re: MARCO TERRELL HUTCHINSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:05-cr-00374-MBS)

Submitted: November 16, 2007 Decided: December 4, 2007

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marco Terrell Hutchinson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Marco Terrell Hutchinson petitions for a writ of mandamus

seeking an order compelling his criminal trial attorney and the

Government’s attorney to provide him with certain materials. We

conclude that Hutchinson is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, only

exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of

power will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.

Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976).

“Mandamus ‘has traditionally been used in the federal courts only

to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed

jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is

its duty to do so.’” United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516

(4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95

(1967)). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In

re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

The relief sought by Hutchinson is not available by way

of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 416 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 416

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To extend the period during which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United 
         States Code remains in effect; and for other purposes.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 416

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
To extend the period during which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United 
         States Code remains in effect; and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME PERIOD.

    The first sentence of section 302(f) of the Bankruptcy Judges, 
United States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 
(Public Law 99-554; 100 Stat. 3124) is amended by striking ``1993'' and 
inserting ``1998''.

SEC. 2. FILING OF PLAN.

    Section 1221 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``an extension is substantially justified'' and inserting 
``the need for an extension is attributable to circumstances for which 
the debtor should not justly be held accountable''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT MADE BY SECTION 2.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendment Made by Section 2.--The amendment made 
by section 2 shall not apply with respect to cases commenced under 
title 11 of the United States Code before the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
            Passed the House of Representatives March 16, 1993.
            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
#### § 60-1.21 Filing complaints.

Complaints shall be filed within 180 days of the alleged violation unless the time for filing is extended by the Director for good cause shown.

[43 FR 49240, Oct. 20, 1978; 43 FR 51400, Nov. 3, 1978, as amended at 62 FR 66971, Dec. 22, 1997]
```

[House Report 106-505]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-505

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

 
    PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

                                _______
                                

 February 29, 2000.--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. 425]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 425, 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 motions to 
suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of March 
8, 2000. The resolution provides that the Speaker or his 
designee will consult with the Minority Leader or his designee 
on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to 
this resolution.

                                  

```
#### IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL A. SHERLING.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 765)

(386 SE2d 662)

Per curiam.

Respondent Michael A. Sherling has petitioned to voluntarily surrender his license to practice law in the State of Georgia. His petition is based upon his admission that he violated Standard 66 of State Bar of Georgia Rule 4-102 by pleading guilty to a felony.

In his petition, Respondent requested that we accept his voluntary surrender of his license to practice law.

The Review Panel of the State Disciplinary Board has reviewed *556the petition, and has recommended that Respondent be allowed to surrender his license to practice law. In view of this recommendation, we direct that he be allowed to surrender his license. Before any reinstatement petition is granted, he must comply with the reinstatement rules of the State Bar of Georgia in effect at such time.

Decided November 9, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Joe David Jackson, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Dwight H. May,*for Sherling.

The application for voluntary surrender of license is granted.

*All the Justices concur.*
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M AR IO REYES-C ALDER ON, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50559

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-02147-DM S M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia D ana M . Sa

braw, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 14, 2016 ** B e fore : B EA, WATFORD, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. M ario R e y e s-C a lde ron a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e n t and c ha lle nge s his guilty -ple a c onvic tion a

nd 37-m onth se nte nc e for atte m pte d re e ntry of a re m ove d a l ie n, in viola

t ion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), R e y e s-C a lde ron’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f stating 

# FIL ED JUN 20 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).that

the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

wa s c ounse l of re c o rd. W e have p rovide d R e y e s-C a lde ron the opportunity to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d . R e y e s-C a lde ron wa i v e d his right to a ppe a l his c onvic tion a

n d se nte nc e . Our inde pe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord pursua nt to P e n son v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a

rgua ble issue a s to the va lidity of the wa ive r. Se e Unite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a c c ordingly dism iss the a ppe a l. Se e id. at 988. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. DISM I SSE D.

1 4 - 5 0 5 5 9 2
No. 11-9224.

#### Foss *v.*Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.