alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 1311 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 22, 2008. 

Whereas Congress created the Gaining Early Awareness and 

Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) in 

1998 to increase the number of low-income students who 

are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education; 

Whereas increasing the number of low-income students who 

complete postsecondary education is critical to the health 

and vitality of our communities and the Nation as a 

whole; 

Whereas GEAR UP is currently providing essential college 

preparatory services to 640,000 students in over 5,000 

schools across 46 States, the District of Columbia, America Samoa, Palau, and Puerto Rico; 

Whereas GEAR UP students are taking more rigorous and 

advanced courses, graduating from high school and enrolling in postsecondary education at rates significantly 

higher than their low-income peers; 

Whereas these remarkable achievements are attributable to 

the selfless dedication of the students, families, education 

professionals, and business and community leaders involved in GEAR UP; 
2 

•HRES 1311 EH 

Whereas the National Council for Community and Education 

Partnerships and the Department of Education work in 

partnership to provide technical assistance and host national conferences to strengthen GEAR UP programs 

throughout the Nation; and 

Whereas July 22, 2008, would be an appropriate day to designate as National GEAR UP Day: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives expresses 

support for the designation of a National GEAR UP Day. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                         146,761
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  251,772
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               398,533
<PP&E>                                      15,546,328
<DEPRECIATION>                                 400,557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,092,933
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,636,941
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,050,000
<COMMON>                                     2,267,340
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,138,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,092,933
<SALES>                                        872,456
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               872,456
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,925,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             577,493
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,630,142)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,630,142)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,630,142)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.72)


</TABLE>
* 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 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50449 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. STEVEN ANDREW BERG Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-268-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Steven Andrew Berg appeals his conviction for possession with the intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. He argues that theprosecutor’s closing argument improperly commented on his postarrest, post- Miranda silence, in violation of Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610 (1976), and that the error requires automatic reversal. A prosecutor violates a defendant’s due process rights by commenting on a defendant’s post-arrest, post- Miranda warningNo. 05-50449 -2- silence in an attempt to impeach the defendant’s exculpatory testimony offered at trial. Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610, 619-20 (1976). Contrary to Berg’s assertion, the prosecutor’s comments regarding his silently “looking straight ahead” reference his silence during secondary inspection, which silence occurred prior to any arrest and thus do not violate Doyle

. See United States v. Musquiz , 45 F.3d 927, 930 (5th Cir. 1995). Berg also objects to the prosecutor’s comment on his failure to say anything after he was arrested and placed in a holding cell. Although the remark referenced Berg’s post-arrest silence, there is no evidence in the record that Berg’s silence at that point was induced by Miranda warnings , a prerequisite for a Doyle violation. See Doyle , 426 U.S. at 619-20. Even if a Doyle violation is assumed, however, the error was harmless given that the statement was not linked to the exculpatory statement Berg offered at trial, that the trial court sustained Berg’s objection and gave a curative instruction, and that the evidence of Berg’s guilt was overwhelming. See United States v. Rodriguez , 43 F.3d 117, 123 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Carter , 953 F.2d 1449, 1466 (5th Cir. 1992); Chapman v. United States , 547 F.2d 1240, 1247-48 (5th Cir. 1977). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
From: rvanderh1@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:27:18 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as Ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Robert Vander Hart

Worcester, MA 01604
No. 132, Misc.

#### Dunbar *v.*Keenan et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York v. The Globe Mutual Life Insurance Company.

Bill allowed at $1.523.34.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19561]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #18114 and #18115; OREGON Disaster Number OR-
00138]


Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the Burns Paiute Tribe

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Burns Paiute Tribe (FEMA-
4733-DR), dated 08/28/2023.
    Incident: Severe Storm, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides.
    Incident Period: 06/11/2023 through 06/12/2023.

DATES: Issued on 08/28/2023.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/27/2023.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/28/2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 
Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 08/28/2023, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Area: Burns Paiute Tribe.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere..       2.375
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available                2.375
   Elsewhere................................................
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available                2.375
   Elsewhere................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18114 B 
and for economic injury is 18115 0.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Francisco S[aacute]nchez, Jr.,
Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.
[FR Doc. 2023-19561 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-20465 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. DIMAS MEDINA-MEJIA, also known as Dimas Medina, also known as Dimas Otoniel Medina-Mejia, also known as Dimas Otoniel Medina Mejia, also known as Daniel Revez, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CR-845-1
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Dimas Medina-Mejia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Medina-Mejia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 17 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-20465 Document: 00511824426 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2012No. 11-20465

counsel’s assessment that th e a p p e a l p r e s e nt s n o n onfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APP E A L IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-20465 Document: 00511824426 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2012
SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies

to the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness

14916-13-PI

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation AdministratioD

14 em Part 39

IDlXket No. FAA-ZOIO-08S4; Directorate Identifier 2009·NM~261-AD; Amendme

\b_:}.5"'l ZOII-<J(;:op 39-...-; AD~..rr

R1N 2126-AA64

AirwortlJines5 Directives; Airbus Model A31 0 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

n

infonnation (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority of anolher country to identify

and correct an unsare condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe

condition as:

During High Time Equipment (HTE) reviews conducted within the scope

oflhe A310 aircraft Design Service Goal (DSG) extension work, Airbus

discovered that the splin~ couplings and the sliding bearings of the flap

transmission system could be affected by corrosion and wear. especially

when tbeir protective components such as wiper rings and rubber gaiters

could become defective.

This condition. ifnot detected and corrected. could degrade the fWlctional

integrity of the flap translIlission system.

-k4M-II'1-

" I

• • • • • • •

"
From: bcolcott@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:16:07 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Carl Olcott

Fabius, NY 13063
From: jeffmichwerner@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:00:12 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Michelle Werner

Hartford, WI 53027
No. 289, Misc.

#### Blakey et al. *v.*Doyle et al.

*Walter S. Pawl*for petitioners.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: kgreen@nwacs.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:30:17 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Green

Centerton, AR 72719
No. 476.

#### Braunstein et al. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

*Thurman Arnold, Louis Eisenstein*and *Julius M. Greisman*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Jones*and *Harry Baum*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted limited to the following question:

“1. Whether Section 117 (m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, which provides that gain 'from the sale or exchange ... of stock of a collapsible corporation’ is taxable as ordinary income rather than capital gain, is inapplicable in circumstances where the stockholders would have been entitled t'o capital gains treatment had they conducted the enterprise in their individual capacities without utilizing a corporation.”
From: jperus@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:16:07 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gerald Peruski

Wixom, MI 48393