alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1624.7 Enforcement. ( a ) The procedures described in part 1618 of these regulations shall apply to any alleged violation of this Part by a legal services program.
( b ) When LSC receives a complaint of a violation of this part, LSC policy is generally to refer such complainants promptly to the appropriate Federal, state or local agencies, although LSC retains the discretion to investigate all complaints and/or to maintain an open complaint file during the pendency of an investigation being conducted by such other Federal, state or local agency. LSC may use, at its discretion, information obtained by such other agency as may be available to LSC, including findings of such other agency of whether discrimination on the basis of disability occurred.
§ 90.46 Prohibition against intimidation or retaliation. Each agency shall provide in its regulations that recipients may not engage in acts of intimidation or retaliation against any person who: ( a ) Attempts to assert a right protected by the Act; or
( b ) Cooperates in any mediation, investigation, hearing, or other part of the agency's investigation, conciliation, and enforcement process.
- 2223
- 2224
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50338 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CRAIG CURRY, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-96-CR-169-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - January 5, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Craig Curry appeals from his conviction and sentence for making a false statement to a financial institution and for interstate transportation of stolen money. He argues solely that the district court erred by failing to reduce his offense level for acceptance of responsibility based on the fact that he voluntarily paid full restitution prior to his adjudication of guilt. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and we hold that the district court did not clearly errNo. 97-50338 -2- by refusing to award Curry a reduction in his offense level based on acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Watson , 988 F.2d 544, 551 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****NGA Chart: 81007          Scale: 1,000,000          Edition: 5          Edition Date: 17-MAR-90          CORRECTED TO NTM:  1990/22**Notice Listing-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NGA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NGA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
6355704.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

JOHN DOE 1, et al., ) 

) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

) 

v. ) Civil Action No.: 17-cv-2694 (ABJ) 

) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

_______________________________________) 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Notice is hereby given that Plaintiffs John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 in the above-named 

case hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

Plaintiffs appeal a judgment (Document 46) and accompanying memorandum opinion 

(Document 47) entered in this action for Defendant. 

April 11, 2018 

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/William Taylor, III 

William Taylor, III 

Dermot Lynch 

ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 

1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000 

Washington, DC 20036 

202-778-1800 

202-822-8106 (fax) 

wtaylor@zuckerman.com 

dlynch@zuckerman.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff John Doe 2

/s/Michael Dry 

Michael Dry 

Case 1:17-cv-02694-ABJ Document 51 Filed 04/11/18 Page 1 of 3
2 

6355704.1 

Kathleen Cooperstein 

VINSON & ELKINS 

2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite 500 West 

Washington, D.C., 20037 

202-639-6500 

202-879-8984 (fax) 

mdry@velaw.com 

kcooperstein@velaw.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff John Doe 2 

Case 1:17-cv-02694-ABJ Document 51 Filed 04/11/18 Page 2 of 3
3 

6355704.1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 11th day of April, 2018, I served the foregoing papers on all 

counsel of record in this case by filing them in the Court’s electronic filing system, which served 

these same papers on counsel of record. 

/s/ William W. Taylor, III 

William W. Taylor, III 

Case 1:17-cv-02694-ABJ Document 51 Filed 04/11/18 Page 3 of 3
#### § 108.560 Rescue boats.

Each unit must carry at least one rescue boat. Each rescue boat must be approved under approval series 160.156. A lifeboat is accepted as a rescue boat if it also meets the requirements for a rescue boat.
Exhibit 32.1


  CERTIFICATIONS OF BRAD JACOBY, PRESIDENT AND PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
 AND BRAD J. PETERS, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Integrated
 Performance Systems, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended January 31,
 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
 hereof (the "Report"), we, the undersigned officers of the Company, certify,
 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S1350, as adopted pursuant to S906 of the Sarbanes-
 Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

      1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
 Company.


 Date:  April 27, 2005         /s/  BRAD JACOBY
                               ----------------------------
                                    Brad Jacoby
                                    Chief Executive Officer



 Date:  April 27, 2005         /s/  BRAD J. PETERS
                               ----------------------------
                                    Brad J. Peters
                                    Principal Financial Officer


 The foregoing certification  is being furnished  as  an  exhibit to the Form
 10-QSB  pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
 63  of  Title  18,  United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed
 as part of the Form 10-QSB  for  purposes  of  Section 18  of the Securities
 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference  into
 any filings of the Company,  whether made before  or  after the date hereof,
 regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
EXHIBIT 11
                                   
                      INNOVATIVE MEDICAL SERVICES
               COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                          FOR THE YEAR ENDED
                        JULY 31, 1997 AND 1996



                                                For the Year Ended
                                                     July 31,
                                           ----------------------------
                                               1997             1996
                                           ----------------------------

Shares outstanding                           3,532,851        3,220,851 
                                            ==========       ========== 

Weighted average shares outstanding          3,284,153        1,821,792 
Stock Options                                  406,250           31,250 
Warrants                                     1,798,125        1,187,500 
                                            ----------       ---------- 
     Total weighted average
      shares outstanding                     5,488,533        3,040,542 
                                            ==========       ========== 


Net Income (Loss)                          $(1,407,314)      $ (430,048)
                                            ==========       ========== 


Net Earnings (Loss) per share               $    (0.26)      $    (0.14)
                                            ==========       ==========
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND 

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

 Defendant, 

AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK, 

 Intervenor-Defendant. 

Civil No. 16-cv-2255 (CRC) 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

 Intervenor-Defendant American Action Network appeals to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the March 20, 2018 judgment of the district 

court (Dkt. Nos. 47 (order) and 48 (memorandum opinion)) granting Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for 

summary judgment and denying the Federal Election Commission’s and American Action 

Network’s motions for summary judgment, as well as from all orders and rulings merged therein, 

including without limitation the September 19, 2016 memorandum opinion and order entered in 

related Case No. 14-cv-01419 (CRC) at Dkt. Nos. 52 (memorandum opinion) and 53 (order). 

 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Claire J. Evans 

Jan Witold Baran (D.C. Bar No. 233486) 

Caleb P. Burns (D.C. Bar No. 474923) 

Claire J. Evans (D.C. Bar No. 992271) 

 Wiley Rein LLP 

1776 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Tel.: 202.719.7000 

Fax: 202.719.7049 

May 4, 2018 Counsel for American Action Network

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 49 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 2
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that, on May 4, 2018, a true and correct copy of American Action 

Network’s notice of appeal was filed and served electronically through the Court’s CM/ECF 

system upon the following counsel of record: 

Charles Kitcher 

Erin R. Chlopak 

Gregory J. Mueller 

Kevin Deeley 

Federal Election Commission 

Office of General Counsel 

1050 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20463 

Stuart C. McPhail 

Adam J. Rappaport 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 

455 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 

6th Floor 

Washington, DC 20001 

/s/ Claire J. Evans 

 Claire J. Evans

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 49 Filed 05/04/18 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 107
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59780, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 107.270 Periodic inspection. ( a ) Your vessel must undergo a periodic inspection within 3 months before or after the second or third anniversary of the date of your vessel's Certificate of Inspection. This periodic inspection will take the place of an annual inspection.
( b ) You must contact the cognizant OCMI to schedule an inspection at a time and place which he or she approves. No written application is required.
( c ) The scope of the periodic inspection is the same as that for the inspection for certification, as specified in § 107.231 except § 107.231(x) and (y). The OCMI will insure that the MODU is in satisfactory condition and fit for the service for which it is intended. If your MODU passes the periodic inspection, the marine inspector will endorse your current Certificate of Inspection.
( d ) If the periodic inspection reveals deficiencies in your MODU's maintenance, you must make any or all repairs or improvements within the time period specified by the OCMI.
( e ) Nothing in this subpart limits the marine inspector from conducting such tests or inspections he or she deems necessary to be assured of the vessel's seaworthiness.
[USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6504, Feb. 9, 2000]
#### Aaron D. Morey, *Appellant, v.*Christian Fisher, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from MoneyGram
Payment Systems, Inc.'s Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 1997 and is
qualified entirely by reference to such Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         20,540
<SECURITIES>                                    8,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                   5,672
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               49,190
<PP&E>                                         10,540
<DEPRECIATION>                                  8,472
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                136,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          32,887
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          166
<OTHER-SE>                                    100,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  136,718
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              140,911
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 133,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 7,810
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,870)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            11,680
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   11,680
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .70



</TABLE>
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 143

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. Benjamin David Greff, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20220059

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Pamela A

. Nesvig , Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Justin J. Schwarz, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND , for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Steven Balaban, Bismarck, ND , for defendant and appellant; submit ted on brief.1 State v. Greff No. 20220059

Per Curiam.
[¶1] Benjamin Greff appeals from an amended order deferring imposition of
sentence after he pled guilty to theft of property and was ordered to pay restitution. Greff argues the district court acted beyond statutory limits in setting the restitution amount at $5,075 based on the testimony of the co

- owner of the stolen property. We conclude the district court acted within statutory limits in setting the amount of restitution

. State v. Pagenkopf , 2020 ND 33, ¶ 6, 939 N.W.2d 2 (“ When reviewing a restitution order, we look to whether the district court acted within the limits set by statute, which is a standard similar to our abuse of discretion standard. ”). We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte
§ 12.803 General requirements. ( a ) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, non-resident alien applicants for Coast Guard-issued MMCs are subject to all applicable requirements contained in this subchapter.
( b ) No application for an MMC from a non-resident alien issued pursuant to this subpart will be accepted unless the applicant's employer satisfies all of the requirements of § 12.805 of this subpart.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-11119

Conference Calendar

 

LOWELL RUSSELL PUGH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CV-1901-G

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Lowell Russell Pugh, Jr., Dallas County prisoner #98042452,

appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights action as

frivolous. Pugh moves to supplement the record on appeal; his

motion is DENIED. 

Pugh contends that he was denied a copy of his police report

in violation of his constitutionally protected rights and Texas

state law; that police violated his constitutionally protected

rights by failing to investigate individuals other than 
No. 98-11119

-2-

himself; and that he was deprived of access to the courts because

he was not allowed to use the jail law library. 

To the extent that Pugh sought expungement of his records in

his complaint, the district court should have abstained from

addressing Pugh’s claims, as his state-court prosecution was

ongoing. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 56 (1971). Regarding

Pugh’s claims for damages, we have reviewed Pugh’s brief and the

record and we find no nonfrivolous appellate issues. 

Accordingly, Pugh’s appeal is dismissed as frivolous. The

dismissal of Pugh’s complaint and the dismissal of this appeal as

frivolous count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). We caution Pugh that once he accumulates three

strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal

filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 22 

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

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education 

relating to ‘‘Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student Loans’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2023 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BOOZMAN, 

Mr. BRAUN, Mr. BUDD, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COTTON, Mr. 

CRAMER, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DAINES, Ms. ERNST, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HAGERTY, Mr. HAWLEY, Mr. HOEVEN, Mrs. 

HYDE-SMITH, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LEE, 

Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. MORAN, Mr. 

MULLIN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROMNEY, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. SCHMITT, Mr. 

SCOTT of Florida, Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. THUNE, Mr. 

TILLIS, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Mr. WICKER, Mr. YOUNG, and Mrs. BRITT) 

introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

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

the Department of Education relating to ‘‘Waivers and 

Modifications of Federal Student Loans’’. 

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 relating to ‘‘Waivers and ModificaVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:17 Mar 28, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ22.IS SJ22

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 22 IS 

1 tions of Federal Student Loans’’ (including the website 

2 announcement entitled ‘‘One-Time Federal Student Loan 

3 Debt Relief’’ and the Federal Register document entitled 

4 ‘‘Federal Student Aid Programs (Federal Perkins Loan 

5 Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, and 

6 William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program)’’ 87 Fed. 

7 Reg. 61512 (Oct. 12, 2022)), and printed in the Congres8 sional Record on March 22, 2023, on pages S903–S906, 

9 along with a letter of opinion from the Government Ac10 countability Office dated March 17, 2023, that the Waiv11 ers and Modifications are a rule under the Congressional 

12 Review Act, and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

)

STOP RECKLESS ECONOMIC )

 INSTABILITY CAUSED BY ) Civ. No. 1:14-397 (AJT-IDD)

DEMOCRATS; TEA PARTY LEADERSHIP )

FUND; ALEXANDRIA REPUBLICAN )

CITY COMMITTEE, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

and )

)

AMERICAN FUTURE PAC, )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

v. )

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )

)

Defendant. )

)

PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Plaintiffs Stop Reckless Economic Instability Caused by 

Democrats, Tea Party Leadership Fund, and Alexandria Republican City Committee, as well as 

Plaintiff-Intervenor American Future PAC, hereby appeal in the above named case to the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from the final judgment and order entered in this action 

on the 27th day of February, 2015. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated April 22, 2015 /s/ Dan Backer

Dan Backer, Esq. 

Virginia State Bar # 78256

DB CAPITOL STRATEGIES PLLC

203 South Street, Suite 300

Alexandria, VA 22314

1

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 82 Filed 04/22/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 1125
Phone: (202) 210-5431

Fax: (202) 478-0750

E-mail: DBacker@DBCapitolStrategies.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/ Michael T. Morley

Michael T. Morley, Esq. 

Virginia State Bar # 65762

COOLIDGE-REAGAN FOUNDATION

1629 K Street, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20006

Phone: (860) 778-3883

Fax: (202) 331-3759

E-mail: Morley@coolidgereagan.org

Attorney for Plaintiffs and Putative PlaintiffIntervenor American Future PAC

/s/ Jerad Najvar*

Jerad Najvar

NAJVAR LAW FIRM

4151 Southwest Freeway

Suite 625

Houston, TX 77027

E-mail: jerad@najvarlaw.com

Attorney for Putative Plaintiff-Intervenor 

American Future PAC

*Admitted pro hac vice

2

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 82 Filed 04/22/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 1126
§ 90.2 What is the purpose of these regulations? ( a ) The purpose of these regulations is to state general, government-wide rules for the implementation of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, and to guide each agency in the preparation of agency-specific age discrimination regulations.
( b ) These regulations apply to each Federal agency which provides Federal financial assistance to any program or activity.