alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

MEMORANDUM November 3, 2022 

TO: Patricia C. Orrock

Chief Compliance Officer

Dayna C. Brown

Assistant Staff Director

Audit Division

FROM: Neven F. Stipanovic 

Associate General Counsel

Policy Division

Jessica Selinkoff

Assistant General Counsel

Compliance Advice 

Margaret J. Forman

Attorney 

SUBJECT: Draft Final Audit Report on Sheila Jackson Lee for Congress (LRA 1148) 

The Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”) has reviewed the Draft Final Audit Report 

(“DFAR”) for Sheila Jackson Lee for Congress. The DFAR contains three findings: 

Misstatement of Financial Activity (Finding 1), Receipt of Contributions in Excess of the Limit 

(Finding 2), and Receipt of Apparent Prohibited Contributions (Finding 3). OGC concurs with 

the findings. If you have any questions, please contact Margaret J. Forman, the attorney 

assigned to this audit.
§ 1641.22 Decisions of debarring official. ( a ) *Standard of proof.* ( 1 ) A debarment or removal must be based on a finding that the cause or causes for debarment or removal are established by a preponderance of the evidence in the administrative record of the case.
( 2 ) A suspension must be based on a finding that the cause or causes are established by adequate evidence in the administrative record of the case.
( b ) The administrative record consists of any information, reports, documents or other evidence identified and relied upon in the Notice of Proposed Debarment, the Notice of Proposed Suspension, or the Notice of Proposed Removal, together with any relevant material contained in the IPA's response or submitted by an affected recipient. In the case of debarment or removal, when additional proceedings are necessary to determine disputed material facts, the administrative record also shall consist of any relevant material submitted or presented at such proceedings.
( c ) Failure of the OIG to meet a time requirement of this part does not preclude the OIG from debarring, suspending or removing an IPA. In extraordinary circumstances, the OIG may grant an IPA an extension of the time requirements set out in this part.
( d ) *Notice of decisions.* IPAs shall be given prompt notice of the debarring official's decision. A copy of the decision also will be sent to the affected recipient. If the debarring official debars, suspends or removes an IPA, the decision shall: ( 1 ) Set forth the finding(s) upon which the decision is based;
( 2 ) Set forth the effect of the debarment, suspension or removal action and the effective dates of the action;
( 3 ) Refer the IPA to its procedural rights of appeal and reconsideration under § 1641.24; and
( 4 ) Inform the IPA that a copy of the debarring official's decision will be a public document and the fact of debarment, suspension or removal will be a matter of public record.
( e ) If the debarring official decides that a debarment, suspension, or removal is not warranted, the Notice may be withdrawn or the proceeding may be otherwise terminated.
( f ) If the debarring official deems it appropriate, the debarring official may, at any time, settle by agreement with the IPA a debarment, suspension, or removal action. Such a negotiated settlement may include the imposition of appropriate conditions on the IPA.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 76279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9801]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING


Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, January 5, 2007.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Catherine D. Daniels,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-9801 Filed 12-18-06; 11:32 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 73 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the multiple agencies relating 

to ‘‘Partnerships With Faith-Based and Neighborhood Organizations’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2024 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. COTTON, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. HAWLEY, Mr. 

SCOTT of Florida, Mrs. BRITT, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, and Mrs. BLACKBURN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the multiple agencies relating to ‘‘Partnerships With 

Faith-Based and Neighborhood Organizations’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Education, the Department of Homeland Se5 curity, the Department of Agriculture, the Agency for 

6 International Development, the Department of Housing 

7 and Urban Development, the Department of Justice, the 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 73 IS 

1 Department of Labor, the Department of Veterans Af2 fairs, and the Department of Health and Human Services 

3 relating to ‘‘Partnerships With Faith-Based and Neigh4 borhood Organizations’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 15671 (March 4, 

5 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136400 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 136400 

 COA: 282731 

Berrien CC: 2003-400146-FC 

LAZZERICK ANTOINE LONG, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0721 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 29, 2008 

 Clerk
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Bank Secrecy Act anti-moneylaundering examination manual**
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.F 49:19/

Item Number:1061-J-08 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000847941
 
2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008| 2010 | 2014: Versions 0102
 
March 18, 2020
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 08a0459n.06

Filed: August 1, 2008

No. 04-4496

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL J. ROBERTS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: DAUGHTREY, GILMAN, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This case is part of a consolidated appeal involving thirteen

defendants who were members of the Outlaw Motorcycle Club (“OMC”), an international

motorcycle club with chapters across the country and around the world. In 1997, the Federal Bureau

of Investigation and state law enforcement agencies began an investigation into the Green region of

the OMC, which consists of chapters in Dayton, Ohio; Fort Wayne, Indiana; Louisville, Kentucky;

Indianapolis, Indiana; and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. As a result of the investigation, a grand jury

in the Northern District of Ohio returned a 40-count indictment in 2003 charging the defendants with

various federal offenses, including Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”),

drug trafficking, and firearms offenses. 

Unlike many of his co-conspirators, defendant Michael J. Roberts chose not to go to trial.

Roberts pled guilty to and was convicted of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
No. 04-4496

USA v. Roberts

- 2 -

distribute narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In the plea agreement, Roberts stipulated that

he conspired to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams but less than 1.5 kilograms of a

mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. This subjected Roberts to a mandatory

minimum sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). On November

22, 2004, Roberts was sentenced to the statutory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment. 

Roberts argues on appeal that the district court erred in calculating his criminal history

category and guidelines range. We need not explore the district court’s guidelines calculations,

however, because Roberts was properly sentenced to the mandatory minimum pursuant to §

841(b)(1)(A). Because Roberts received the minimum sentence that the district court could

statutorily impose based on his guilty plea, Roberts cannot receive a decreased sentence. Thus, any

error in the district court’s guidelines calculations would not affect Roberts’s sentence. Roberts also

argues that the district court committed Booker error in treating the guidelines as mandatory. Again,

because Roberts was sentenced based on the statutory minimum, application of Booker would not

result in a decreased sentence. Cf. United States v. Joiner, 123 F. App’x 681, 683 (6th Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, Roberts’s sentence is affirmed.
From: McKaughan, Colleen

To: stephenbetsitty@navajo-nsn.gov; eugeniaquintana@navajo-nsn.gov

Cc: Rios, Gerardo; Chew, Andrew

Subject: McElmo Creek PSD Permit

Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:19:29 PM

Hi, Steve and Eugenia,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consult with you about Region 9's plans to

propose a PSD permitting action for the Main Flare at Resolute's McElmo Creek Unit. As

we explained, this permitting action is not for any new project, but rather to incorporate

EPA's 2005 Consent Decree requirements into the Facility’s existing PSD permit. As a

result, these requirements would be made enforceable through the permit after the Consent

Decree terminates. Secondly, this proposed action would update the outdated PSD permit

to address equipment that has shut down and has been removed from the premises.

Because this proposed action is not significant or part of any new project, and based on the

discussion we had with you on May 8, it is our understanding that ongoing

communications and coordination between Navajo EPA and EPA Region 9 Air Division

staff regarding this action should suffice as consultation between EPA and the Navajo

government. During the public comment period, our Region will consider holding a public

hearing if we determine that there is a significant amount of public interest. If you have any

questions or comments, please call or e-mail me. I hope you both have a good holiday

weekend.

Colleen McKaughan
§ 233.36 Monthly reporting (AFDC). ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a State plan for AFDC shall require the caretaker relative, or another person designated by the State, to submit, on behalf of each assistance unit whose members have earned income or recent work history, each assistance unit which has income deemed to it from individuals living with the unit who have earned income or a recent work history and, at State option, other assistance units, a completed report form to the agency monthly on: ( 1 ) Budget month income, family composition, and other circumstances relevant to the amount of the assistance payment; and
( 2 ) Any changes in income, resources, or other relevant circumstances affecting continued eligibility which the assistance unit expects to occur in the current month or in future months.
( 3 ) The income of a parent or a legal guardian of a minor parent, a stepparent, or an alien sponsor, as well as the resources of an alien sponsor, where appropriate.
( b ) A State may exempt categories of recipients otherwise required to report monthly from reporting each month with prior approval by the Secretary if the State can demonstrate that not requiring these cases to file monthly reports is cost effective. The Secretary will grant waivers under this provision for a period up to one year, at the end of which time the State may request an extension of the waiver. A decision by the Secretary not to approve a request for an exemption is not appealable. The plan shall include criteria for assuring ( 1 ) that exempted cases are unlikely to incur changes in circumstances from month to month which would impact their eligibility r amount of assistance and
( 2 ) that the administrative cost of requiring those categories to report monthly will be greater than the program savings which would accrue.
( c ) States shall also direct recipients to report information as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section to the agency as they become aware of expected changes rather than waiting to inform the State on the monthly report.
[47 FR 5679, Feb. 5, 1982, as amended at 49 FR 35602, Sept. 10, 1984; 57 FR 30160, July 8, 1992]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                            5,020,971
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,239,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  146,785,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                       72,778,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    146,785,550
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5,902,794
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5,288,210
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,522,340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (907,756)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (907,756)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (907,756)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1731 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1731

     To amend the Truth in Lending Act to require any creditor who 
  transfers, sells, or conveys certain residential mortgage loans to 
 third parties to retain an economic interest in a material portion of 
       the credit risk for any such loan, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2009

 Mr. Minnick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Truth in Lending Act to require any creditor who 
  transfers, sells, or conveys certain residential mortgage loans to 
 third parties to retain an economic interest in a material portion of 
       the credit risk for any such loan, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Credit Risk Retention Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. CREDIT RISK RETENTION.

    Section 129 of the Truth in Lending Act (U.S.C. 1639) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(m) Credit Risk Retention.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Federal banking agencies shall 
        prescribe regulations jointly to require any creditor that 
        makes a residential mortgage loan that is not a qualified 
        mortgage (as defined by such agencies) to retain an economic 
        interest in a material portion of the credit risk for any such 
        loan that the creditor transfers, sells, or conveys to a third 
        party.
            ``(2) Standards for regulations.--Regulations prescribed 
        under paragraph (1) shall--
                    ``(A) apply only to residential mortgage loans that 
                are not qualified mortgages (as so defined);
                    ``(B) prohibit creditors from directly or 
                indirectly hedging or otherwise transferring the credit 
                risk creditors are required to retain under the 
                regulations with respect to any residential mortgage 
                loan; and
                    ``(C) require creditors to retain at least 5 
                percent of the credit risk on any non-qualified 
                mortgage that is transferred, sold or conveyed.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 400.318 Eligible grantees.

Eligible grantees are those agencies of State governments which are responsible for the refugee program under 45 CFR 400.5 in States containing counties which qualify for targeted assistance awards. The use of targeted assistance funds for services to Cuban and Haitian entrants is limited to States which have an approved State plan under the Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program (CHEP).
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 5384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-995]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Sunshine Act Meeting; Board of Governors

Times and Dates: 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, February 7, 2006; 8:30 a.m. and 
10 a.m., Wednesday, February 8, 2006.

Place: Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.

Status: February 7--10:30 a.m. (Closed); February 8--8:30 a.m. (Open); 
February 8--10 a.m. (Closed).

Matters To Be Considered: 

Tuesday, February 7 at 10:30 a.m. (Closed)

    1. Strategic Planning.
    2. Financial Update.
    3. Rate Case Planning.
    4. Labor Negotiations Planning.
    5. Negotiated Service Agreement.
    6. Capital Investment--Remote Encoding System.
    7. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.

Wednesday, February 8 at 8:30 a.m. (Open)

    1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting, January 10, 2006.
    2. Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO Jack Potter.
    3. Appointment of Members to Board Committees and Committee 
Reports.
    4. Capital Investment--Flats Sequencing System and Delivery Point 
Packager Research & Development Modification.
    5. Quarterly Report on Financial Performance.
    6. Tentative Agenda for the March 28, 2006, meeting in Washington, 
DC.

Wednesday, February 8 at 10 a.m. (Closed) (If Needed)

    1. Continuation of Tuesday's closed session agenda.

Contact Person for More Information: William T. Johnstone, Secretary of 
the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

William T. Johnstone,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-995 Filed 1-30-06; 3:33 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0141 

SAMANTHA VULLES, SHERI ESTENSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs and Appellants, 

v. 

THIES & TALLE MANAGEMENT, INC., 

THIES & TALLE ENTERPRISES, INC., 

ALMANOR INVESTORS LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP and JOHN DOES 1-4, 

Defendants and Appellees. 

ORDER 

FILED 

OCT 1 9 2021 

Bowen Cirtenwoocl 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

Appellees have filed a motion to strike the affidavit of Patience Woodill and related 

exhibits attached to Appellants' reply brief filed on September 29, 2021. Appellees support 

their motion by arguing that Appellants cannot introduce new evidence to supplement the 

record for the first time on appeal. They further contend that the affidavit is inadmissible 

hearsay under M. R. Evid. 801 and 802. 

Appellants oppose the motion and respond that Appellees accused them of 

-forurn-shopping" in their response brief; therefore, Woodill's affidavit and related 

exhibits are the "only course of action to refute those unsubstantiated claims." 

We conclude it is appropriate to take the motion to strike under advisement and 

consider it in conjunction with consideration of the merits of the appeal. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to strike the affidavit of Patience Woodill and 

related exhibits, attached to Appellants' reply brief, as well as all references thereto, is 

TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to counsel 

of record. 

DATED this aay of October, 2021. 

10/19/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0141
/2- )-,47L,,, 

ChiefJustice 

Justices
§ 2555.310 Recruitment. ( a ) *Nondiscriminatory recruitment.* A recipient to which §§ 2555.300 through 2555.310 apply shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in the recruitment and admission of students. A recipient may be required to undertake additional recruitment efforts for one sex as remedial action pursuant to § 2555.110(a), and may choose to undertake such efforts as affirmative action pursuant to § 2555.110(b).
( b ) *Recruitment at certain institutions.* A recipient to which §§ 2555.300 through 2555.310 apply shall not recruit primarily or exclusively at educational institutions, schools, or entities that admit as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if such actions have the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of §§ 2555.300 through 2555.310.