alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ )

WARDELL CROCKETT, JR.

, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 11

- 2124 ( R B W )

)

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al.

, )

)

R espondents

. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

At the time petitioner filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, he was detained at the

District of Columbia Jail pursuant to a parole violator warrant issued by the United States Parole

Commission (“USPC”)

. See Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Custody in the

District of Columbia [Dkt. #1] at 5. The U SPC filed a m otion to d ismiss the p etition [Dkt. #5]

on February 6, 2012. On February 8, 2012, the Court issued an Order which directed the

petitioner to file his opposition or other response to the motion no later than March 9, 2012

. The

Order notified petitioner that, if he failed to respond by that date, the Court would treat the

USPC ’ s motion as conceded and may summarily dismiss this case. To date, petitioner neither

has filed an opposition, a request for more time to file an opposition , nor a change of address

. 1

1 Pursuant to the USPC’s February 3, 2012 Notice of Action, see United States Parole

Commission Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Ex. F,

p etitioner was to be released from custody , although the date of petitioner’s re lease is not

indicated . Neither the District of Columbia Department of Corrections VINELink nor the

Federal B ureau of Prisons Inmate Locator indicates that petitioner remains in custody.2 Accordingly, the Court treats the motion as conceded and will grant respond ent’s motion

to dismiss. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: September 17, 2012 REGGIE B. WALTON

United States District Judge
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00768

- CV

Mark HOMER a/k/a Doc’s Space Center,

Appellant

v.

Ernesto MARTINEZ

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 380903A

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of court for this appeal are taxed against Mark Homer a/k/a

Doc’s Space Center.

SIGNED December 5, 2018.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0959.html[7/21/2015 6:50:37 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-9o5h

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0959

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Brian Glynn

General Comment

I am perfectly capable of managing my finances and planning for retirement. HANDS OFF
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1460.html[7/23/2015 11:19:31 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvo-8g60

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1460

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Almost everyday I hear of another attempt by the government to control and take over my life. I like millions of

 other citizens have worked hard their whole life only to be continually controlled, deprived and taxed to death.

 Now I hear some of you in government want to control and get a piece of my retirement. It seems like it's never

 enough. I smell another tea party brewing. You politicians think you know better than your constituents what is

 best for us. You are supposed to be the mouthpiece of the citizens you represent. I emphasize "citizens". I hope

 the people that get this are not part of the problem and relay this to the people who are the problem. I ask you to

 start doing the right thing for the "working" people of this country instead of yourselves, the bums that live

 pretty well from cradle to grave without having to work at all. Again I apologize if this goes to someone that

 wants to help correct the mess stated above. Thank you
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 12-3575

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v. Kelvin Maximillion Stanford lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________ Submitted: March 7, 2013 Filed: April 5, 2013 [Unpublished]

____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Kelvin Stanford appeals after he pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses and the district court 1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. Stanford’s counsel has

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court committed an error in calculating Stanford’s Guidelines range, imposed an unreasonable sentence, and plainly erred in imposing a special condition of supervised release. First, we conclude that there is no me rit to counsel’s argument challenging the district court’s Guidelines calculations. See United States v. Swanson , 610 F.3d 1005, 1007-08 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court’s Guid elines applications are reviewed de novo and its factual findings are reviewed for clear error; application of firearm enhancement requires district court to make finding that gun facilitated or had potential to facilitate drug possession; fac ilitation requirement “may be met when a defendant concurrently posse sses drugs and a firearm while in public, like in a car”). Second, we find no basis for c oncluding that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (discussing appellate court review of se ntencing decision under abuse-of-discretion standard; noting that appellate court ma y apply presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines-range sentence). Third, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in imposing an alcohol ban as a special condition of Stanford’s supervised release. See United States v. Roberts , 687 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (8th Cir. 2012) (upholding alcohol ban for daily, heavy user of marijuana, because alcohol use limits recovering person’s ability to maintain drug -free lifestyle). Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 21 (Thursday, February 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 4718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-452]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center on Minority Health and Health 
Disparities Special Emphasis Panel, NCMHD Conference Grant Review 
(R13).
    Date: February 16, 2007.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Democracy 2, 6707 
Democracy Blvd., Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Lorrita Watson, PhD, National Center on Minority 
Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, 6707 
Democracy Blvd, Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892-5465, (301) 402-1366, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9becfaefe8f4f5f7dbf5f8f6f3ffb5f5f2f3b5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b5c4a5f584445476b454846434f05454243054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 25, 2007.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-452 Filed 1-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Editorial Note on Part 386
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 386 appear at 65 FR 7755, Feb. 16, 2000, and 88 FR 80182, Nov. 17, 2023.

§ 386.3 Separation of functions. ( a ) Civil penalty proceedings will be prosecuted by Agency Counsel who represent the Field Administrator. In Notices of Violation, the Field Administrator will be represented by Agency Counsel.
( b ) An Agency employee, including those listed in paragraph (c) of this section, engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecutorial functions in a civil penalty proceeding or in a proceeding under § 386.11, § 386.72, or § 386.73 may not, in that case or a factually related case, discuss or communicate the facts or issues involved with the Agency Decisionmaker, Administrative Law Judge, Hearing Officer, or others listed in paragraph (d) of this section, except as counsel or a witness in the public proceedings. The prohibition in this paragraph (b) also includes the staff of those covered by this section.
( c ) The Deputy Chief Counsel, Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation, and attorneys in the Enforcement and Litigation Division serve as enforcement counsel in the prosecution of all cases brought under this part.
( d ) The Chief Counsel, the Special Counsel to the Chief Counsel, and attorneys serving as Adjudications Counsel advise the Agency Decisionmaker regarding all cases brought under this Part.
( e ) Nothing in this part shall preclude Agency Decisionmakers or anyone advising an Agency Decisionmaker from taking part in a determination to launch an investigation or issue a complaint, or similar preliminary decision.
[70 FR 28479, May 18, 2005, as amended at 86 FR 57071, Oct. 14, 2021]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 160 (Monday, August 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 46446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4093]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, September 7, 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: David A. Stawick, 202-418-5100.

David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-4093 Filed 8-16-07; 1:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0910.html[7/21/2015 6:00:07 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-bora

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0910

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Patricia Constantine

General Comment

I am very concerned if the government starts trying to control my IRA, 401K or any other of my retirement

 accounts. This is money I earned and I have decided how I want it put away for my retirement. I don't believe

 the government should be telling me what to do. Especially after how the government has handled social

 security which started out being a retirement program for retirees and now it is used for much more than the

 intended purpose. Please let us keep things out of the government hands that were never intended to be there in

 the first place per our founding fathers.

Sincerely,

Pat Constantine
# A-1 (2)
-----Original Message----- 

From: jongreen8@gmail.com [mailto:jongreen8@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:16 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

jon green 

10178 Myer Pl 

Cupertino, CA 95014
1Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-60631 

Summary Calendar

HARRY NELSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi 

May 13, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Harry Nelson appeals the district court’s judgment affirming

the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to terminate

Nelson’s disability benefits. Nelson contends that the

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) violated the rule in Stone v.

Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir. 1985). The ALJ, however,

implicitly found Nelson’s impairment to be severe when he

considered steps seven and eight in the sequential analysis. 
2

Reyes v. Sullivan, 915 F.2d 151, 153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); see also,

Griego v. Sullivan, 940 F.2d 942, 944 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991) (setting

out the sequential analysis). Thus, the ALJ did not violate

Stone’s rule.

Nelson also argues that the ALJ did not properly consider

either his own testimony or the vocational expert’s. Had the ALJ

done so, he would have found Nelson to be permanently and totally

disabled. The record, however, contains substantial evidence

supporting the ALJ’s findings. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.

389, 390 (1971).

Nelson’s final contention is that the ALJ failed to develop a

full and fair record. This issue, however, has not been exhausted

because Nelson did not present it to the Appeals Council. Thus, we

have no jurisdiction over this issue. See Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d

208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994). 

AFFIRMED.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, August 2, 1995 (107), Para 107.26 Motion to Adjourn]
[Page 1246]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.107.26  motion to adjourn

  Mr. FATTAH moved that the House do now adjourn.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House now adjourn?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EMERSON, announced that the nays had it.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House agree to said motion?
  Mr. FATTAH demanded a recorded vote on agreeing to said motion, which 
demand was supported by one-fifth of a quorum, so a recorded vote was 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device.

It was decided in the

Yeas

89

negative

Nays

216
```
Editions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSA) are available from 1989 (the first year of publication) - present.

Note that due to changes in software and formats, many of the early files do not contain all the graphics and header information as was originally printed. They do, however, contain the necessary information to look up duty rates that were in effect at the time. Please also note that 2022 HTSA Revision 12 reflects a few technical, or formatting, issues.  While they do not impact the accuracy of the information presented, you may wish to, instead, refer to earlier or later in time revisions.

Select editions are available below in HTML format.  Some editions are also available as CSV, XLS, or JSON file downloads.

Displaying 1 - 25 of 195

2024 HTSA Revision 9: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2024 HTSA Revision 8: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2024 HTSA Revision 7: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2024 HTSA Revision 6: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2024 HTSA Revision 5: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2024 HTSA Revision 4: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2024 HTSA Revision 3: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2024 HTSA Revision 2: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2024 HTSA Revision 1: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2024 HTSA Basic Edition: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2023 HTSA Revision 11: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2023 HTSA Revision 10: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2023 HTSA Revision 9: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2023 HTSA Revision 8: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2023 HTSA Revision 7: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2023 HTSA Revision 6: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2023 HTSA Revision 5: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2023 HTSA Revision 4: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2023 HTSA Revision 3: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2023 HTSA Revision 2: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2023 HTSA Revision 1: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2023 HTSA Basic Edition: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2022 HTSA Revision 12: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2022 HTSA Revision 11: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

2022 HTSA Revision 10: HTML | CSV | XLS | JSON

#### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
-                Page            4 
-                Page            5 
-                Page            6 
-                Page            7 
-                Page            8 
-  Next page›› 
-  Last pageLast »
e 

U S Deoartmen t Assistant Secretary 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

" ' ' ''"H" ' "'"V. " Washington, DC 20590 

of Transportation "^ 

Office of the Secretary ^,. ^ ^ 

of Transportation APR 0 2 2010 

The Honorable Edward G. Rendell 

Governor of Pennsylvania 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

Dear Governor Rendell: 

Thank you for your letter of March 12 supporting the application for antitrust immunity filed by 

American Airlines and Japan Airlines. I am responding on behalf of Secretary LaHood. 

As you may know, the applicants—members of the oneworld Alliance—are seeking antitrust 

immunity to closely coordinate flights between the United States and Asia. According to the 

application, the alliance partners plan to launch a joint venture for conveyance of transpacific 

traffic. 

The application is administered in a public docket, which ensures that interested parties have the 

opportimity to comment. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) will evaluate the 

application according to rigorous statutory standards, beginning with a review of the record to 

determine if it is substantially complete. Decisions on the application are made in consultation 

with the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division following a thorough analysis of 

competitive factors. As this matter is now pending, I hope you understand that I cannot 

comment on the merits of the application. I can assure you, however, that DOT will give full 

and fair consideration to the application as well as any comments filed in the docket. 

As is our normal practice, I am placing a copy of your letter and this response in Docket 

DOT-OST-2010-0059 as a contact outside the record in this matter. I appreciate your interest in 

this proceeding. 

Sincerely yours. 

y^^U^^; 

Susan L. Kurland 

Assistant Secretary 

for Aviation and International Affairs 
SI 0-100317-030 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

HARRISBURG 

THE GOVERNOR 

March 12, 2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST-20104ffH 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

Please support and approve the application for antitrust immunity and proposed joint 

business agreement filed by American Airlines (AA) and Japan Airlines (JAL). The proposed 

alliance between these two airlines is vital to effectively operate and compete in transpacific air 

service. This increased competition will in turn enhance the benefits of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation's Open Skies policy - first by solidifying U.S.-Japan Open Skies, then by serving 

as a foundation for further liberalization across Asia. 

Additionally, the Department's approval of this application would enable AA and JAL to 

work closely together to deliver highly competitive air transportation services by offering 

customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and ensure consumer choice. Again, I 

encourage the Department's approval of this application. 

Sincerely, 

Edward G. Rendell 

Governor
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1100.html[7/22/2015 10:55:30 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-i3vx

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1100

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Coral Hamann

General Comment

I am smart enough to plann for my own retirement!
###### Editorial Note on Part 384

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 384 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 384.211 Surrender of old licenses.

The State may not initially issue, upgrade, or transfer a CDL to a person unless such person first surrenders any previously issued driver's license and CLP.

[76 FR 26894, May 9, 2011]