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

House Calendar No. 224

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 568

[Report No. 107–718] 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 112) making 

further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 2, 2002

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 

112) making further continuing appropriations for the 

fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 

3 order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 

4 Res. 112) making further continuing appropriations for 

5 the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes. The joint 

6 resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
2

HRES 568 RH 

1 previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 

2 joint resolution to final passage without intervening mo3 tion except: (1) one hour of debate on the joint resolution 

4 equally divided and controlled by the chairman and rank5 ing minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; 

6 and (2) one motion to recommit. 

House Calendar No. 224

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 568

[Report No. 107–718] 

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution 

(H.J. Res. 112) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes. 

OCTOBER 2, 2002

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*The Board of Supervisors of Chenango County v. The Board of State Assessors.

Motion to dismiss for want of prosecution denied, without costs.

Follett, J., not sitting.
IV

House Calendar No. 177

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 451

[Report No. 107–522]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4931) to provide that the pension

and individual retirement arrangement provisions of the Economic

Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall be permanent.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 20, 2002

Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4931) to provide

that the pension and individual retirement arrangement

provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall be permanent.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.

3 4931) to provide that the pension and individual retire4 ment arrangement provisions of the Economic Growth and

5 Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall be permanent.

6 The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The
2

HRES 451 RH

1 previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

2 bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage with3 out intervening motion except: (1) One hour of debate on

4 the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

5 ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and

6 Means; (2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute

7 printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accom8 panying this resolution, if offered by Representative Mat9 sui of California or his designee, which shall be in order

10 without intervention of any point of order, shall be consid11 ered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one

12 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and

13 an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or

14 without instructions.

House Calendar No. 177

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 451

[Report No. 107–522]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4931)

to provide that the pension and individual retirement arrangement provisions of the EconomicGrowth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of2001 shall be permanent.

JUNE 20, 2002

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
# Amtsblatt C 154/11.

| | ISSN 1725-2407 |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | C 154 |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen | 47. Jahrgang11. Juni 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2407

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

C 154

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen

47. Jahrgang11. Juni 2004

---

| Informationsnummer | Inhalt | Seite |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Mitteilungen |
| | Kommission |
| 2004/C 154/1 | Euro-Wechselkurs | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Inhalt

Seite

I   Mitteilungen

Kommission

2004/C 154/1

Euro-Wechselkurs

1

| DE | |
| --- | --- |

DE

---

I Mitteilungen

Kommission

| 11.6.2004 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | C 154/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2004

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

C 154/1

---

Euro-Wechselkurs (1)

10. Juni 2004

(2004/C 154/01)

1 Euro=

| | Währung | Kurs |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US-Dollar | 1,2052 |
| JPY | Japanischer Yen | 131,84 |
| DKK | Dänische Krone | 7,4384 |
| GBP | Pfund Sterling | 0,6614 |
| SEK | Schwedische Krone | 9,1475 |
| CHF | Schweizer Franken | 1,5126 |
| ISK | Isländische Krone | 87,12 |
| NOK | Norwegische Krone | 8,28 |
| BGN | Bulgarischer Lew | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Zypern-Pfund | 0,5828 |
| CZK | Tschechische Krone | 31,33 |
| EEK | Estnische Krone | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Ungarischer Forint | 253,10 |
| LTL | Litauischer Litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Lettischer Lat | 0,6536 |
| MTL | Maltesische Lira | 0,4249 |
| PLN | Polnischer Zloty | 4,5877 |
| ROL | Rumänischer Leu | 40 865 |
| SIT | Slowenischer Tolar | 239,14 |
| SKK | Slowakische Krone | 39,87 |
| TRL | Türkische Lira | 1 806 800 |
| AUD | Australischer Dollar | 1,7374 |
| CAD | Kanadischer Dollar | 1,6381 |
| HKD | Hongkong-Dollar | 9,3975 |
| NZD | Neuseeländischer Dollar | 1,9120 |
| SGD | Singapur-Dollar | 2,0637 |
| KRW | Südkoreanischer Won | 1 396,96 |
| ZAR | Südafrikanischer Rand | 8,0189 |

Währung

Kurs

USD

US-Dollar

1,2052

JPY

Japanischer Yen

131,84

DKK

Dänische Krone

7,4384

GBP

Pfund Sterling

0,6614

SEK

Schwedische Krone

9,1475

CHF

Schweizer Franken

1,5126

ISK

Isländische Krone

87,12

NOK

Norwegische Krone

8,28

BGN

Bulgarischer Lew

1,9558

CYP

Zypern-Pfund

0,5828

CZK

Tschechische Krone

31,33

EEK

Estnische Krone

15,6466

HUF

Ungarischer Forint

253,10

LTL

Litauischer Litas

3,4528

LVL

Lettischer Lat

0,6536

MTL

Maltesische Lira

0,4249

PLN

Polnischer Zloty

4,5877

ROL

Rumänischer Leu

40 865

SIT

Slowenischer Tolar

239,14

SKK

Slowakische Krone

39,87

TRL

Türkische Lira

1 806 800

AUD

Australischer Dollar

1,7374

CAD

Kanadischer Dollar

1,6381

HKD

Hongkong-Dollar

9,3975

NZD

Neuseeländischer Dollar

1,9120

SGD

Singapur-Dollar

2,0637

KRW

Südkoreanischer Won

1 396,96

ZAR

Südafrikanischer Rand

8,0189

---

(1)

Quelle: Von der Europäischen Zentralbank veröffentlichter Referenz-Wechselkurs.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANA ARACELY LIZAMA RIVAS, 

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 13-72713

Agency No. A099-725-664

ORDER*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted June 8, 2016

Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

The parties jointly moved to remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) for administrative closure. The Joint Motion to Remand is GRANTED, and

petitioner’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA. 

FILED

AUG 25 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40338 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. OBDULIA LUCIO

- GUEVARA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16

- CR

- 1032

- 1

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Citing United States v. Franco

- Galvan , 864 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2017), Obdulia Lucio

- Guevara appeals the district court’s assessment of the eight

level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2)(B)

. That enhancement was applied based on the sentence imposed for Lucio

- Guevara ’s 2006 conviction for transportation of an undocumented alien within the United States by means of a motor vehicle for private financial gain.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 29, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40338 Document: 00514325619 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2018No. 17

- 40338

2 Lucio

- Guevara is correct that the district court, for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(2) (B) , should have considered only the 18

- m onth sentence she received in that case prior to her first order of deportation and not the post

deportation six

- month sentence later imposed upon revocation of her supervised release. See Franco

- Galvan , 864 F.3d at 340

- 43. The district court thus erred in applying § 2L1.2(b)(2)(B) and should have instead applied the six

- level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(2)(C). See § 2L1.2(b)(2) (B), (C). The district court did not consider the correct guidelines range in selecting Lucio

- Guevara’s sentence. Given that t he district co urt imposed a sentence at the bottom of the incorrect range and did not give any indication that it would have otherwise imposed the same sentence, the Government has not demonstrated that the error was harmless. See U nited States v. Ibarra

Luna , 628 F.3d 712, 713

- 14, 718

- 19 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, w e VACATE the sentence and REMAND to the district court for resentencing. Case: 17-40338 Document: 00514325619 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2018
-----Original Message-----

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 3:29 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: Fiduciary Ruling

It is equally important to allow clients to interact with their representatives as that choose. Most reps 

work in a diligent manner to help their clients understand and safeguard their assets with the upmost 

integrity. Don't let a few rotten apples spoil the day!!

Sincerely, 

Sent from my iPhone
PUBLIC LAW 109–124—DEC. 1, 2005 119 STAT. 2543

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3853:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):

Oct. 18, considered and passed House.

Nov. 18, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–124

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 208 South

Main Street in Parkdale, Arkansas, as the Willie Vaughn Post Office.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

208 South Main Street in Parkdale, Arkansas, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Willie Vaughn Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Willie Vaughn

Post Office’’.

Approved December 1, 2005.

Dec. 1, 2005

[H.R. 3853]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1396.html[7/23/2015 9:25:27 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvn-s4oh

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-1396

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I am able to plan for my own Retirement! Do not need the Government in my finances! Too much Nanny State

 as is!
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.11.2

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT
                                   (ATKINSON)

         The undersigned (the "Employee"), in consideration of the payment of
one (1) year's Base Salary, does hereby agree to the termination of his
Employment Agreement dated August 10, 2000 with Heritage Holdings, Inc., as
assigned to U.S. Propane, L.P. effective as of the closing of the Contribution
Agreement dated November 6, 2003 between LaGrange Energy L.P. and each of
Heritage Propane Partners, L.P. and Heritage Operating, L.P.

         This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts and by
original or facsimile signatures delivered by the parties to the other, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which constitute one and the same
document.

         The parties hereto agree that the Employee shall continue as an at will
employee.

         Dated January 20, 2004.

                                      U. S. PROPANE, L.P.

                                      By U.S. Propane, L.L.C., General Partner

                                      By: ____________________________________

                                      Its: President

                                      _____________________________________
                                      Bradley K. Atkinson

                                                                "Employee"
#### § 845.8 Technical panel.

The appropriate office director(s) and/or the hearing officer, in consultation with the NTSB Managing Director, shall determine if a technical panel is needed and, if so, shall designate members of the NTSB technical staff to participate in the investigative hearing. Members of the technical panel may conduct pre-screening of witnesses through interviews, and may take other actions to prepare for the hearing. At the hearing, the technical panel will initially examine the witnesses through questioning. The technical panel shall examine witnesses and secure, in the form of a public record, facts pertaining to the accident or incident under investigation and surrounding circumstances and conditions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000741612
<NAME> TNP ENTERPRISES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      923,268
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      5,704
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          34,644
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        28,310
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 991,926
<COMMON>                                       187,163
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            111,078
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 298,241
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,240
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           478,041
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      100
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 212,304
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  991,926
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      585,234
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            20,108
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     469,480
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     489,588
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         95,646
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,723
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  97,369
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        56,914
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,678
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        158
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   29,520
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        13,147
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       52,557
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         103,853
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.26
        

</TABLE>
Jan. 26: Military Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq
 By CJTF - Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
  January 26, 2015 Release # 2015026FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **SOUTHWEST ASIA –**
 On Jan. 25, U.S. and Coalition military forces continued to attack ISIL
 terrorists in Syria, using attack, fighter, and remotely piloted 
aircraft to conduct 21 airstrikes. Separately, U.S. and Coalition 
military forces conducted 13 airstrikes in Iraq, using attack, fighter, 
and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists. All strikes took 
place between 8 a.m., Jan. 25, and 8 a.m., Jan. 26, local time. The following is a summary of the strikes conducted since the last press release: **Syria**•  Near Al Qaim, an airstrike destroyed three ISIL armored vehicles.•  Near Ar Raqqah, two airstrikes destroyed six ISIL armored vehicles and an ISIL vehicle.•  Near Dayr az Zawr, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL armored vehicle.•
  Near Kobani, 17 airstrikes struck 14 ISIL tactical units, a large ISIL
 unit, and two ISIL fighting positions, and destroyed six ISIL fighting 
positions, an ISIL vehicle, and an ISIL staging area. **Iraq**•  Near Fallujah, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL excavator.•  Near Haditha, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit.•
  Near Mosul, four airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and 
destroyed three ISIL bunkers, two ISIL vehicles, and an ISIL armored 
vehicle.•  Near Tal Afar, seven airstrikes struck a large ISIL unit 
and destroyed three ISIL mortar firing positions, three ISIL VBIEDs, 
eight ISIL armored vehicles, an ISIL checkpoint, 15 ISIL vehicles, and 
three ISIL fighting positions. Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned to base safely. The
 strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the 
operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose
 to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The 
destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the 
terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations. 
Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the U.S., 
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Netherlands, and the United
 Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the 
U.S., Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
§ 835.9 Procedure in the event of a subpoena in civil litigation. ( a ) If the Board employee has received a subpoena to appear and testify in connection with civil litigation, a request for his deposition shall not be approved until the subpoena has been withdrawn.
( b ) Upon receipt of a subpoena, the employee shall immediately notify the General Counsel and provide all information requested by the General Counsel.
( c ) The General Counsel shall determine the course of action to be taken and will so advise the employee.
[63 FR 71608, Dec. 29, 1998]
IV

House Calendar No. 201

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 498

[Report No. 107–608]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4965) to prohibit the procedure

commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 23, 2002

Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4965) to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth

abortion.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

3 order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4965) to

4 prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth

5 abortion. The bill shall be considered as read for amend6 ment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

7 on the bill to final passage without intervening motion ex-
2

HRES 498 RH

1 cept: (1) two hours of debate on the bill equally divided

2 and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

3 member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one

4 motion to recommit.

House Calendar No. 201

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 498

[Report No. 107–608]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4965)

to prohibit the procedure commonly known aspartial-birth abortion.

JULY 23, 2002

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
From: Michael Lupacchino

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA

Subject: Federal Law vs. Self Administration Health Care

Date: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 3:31:27 PM

To Whom It May Concern,

I apologize if this isn't the right address to contact, if so, could you forward my

inquiry to the appropriate party? I have a concern regarding the new Health Care

Reform.

My name is Michael Lupacchino. I am 22 years old and technically an "Adult Child." I

just graduated from College and am working but don't have access to benefits as I

am an hourly employee.

My question is in regards to the federal law and self administering insurance plans.

My Mother's plan (who I am currently under until the end of the month) is

administered through the board of education of our town. However, they are

claiming that because they are a "Self Administering Plan" they don't have to follow

Federal regulations and thus - "Adult Children" does not apply.

I was wondering if this is A) Legal and B) Is there an appeal for this ? It seems to

me Federal Law is a Mandate - not an option.

Thank you for your time.

Any information you could give me would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Michael Lupacchino