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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4058 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4058

  To require that the regulations related to SAVE Plan shall have the 
                    force and effect of enacted law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 2024

 Mr. Merkley (for himself, Mr. Booker, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. 
    Wyden, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Welch, Ms. Hirono, Ms. 
  Duckworth, Ms. Butler, Ms. Smith, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Padilla) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require that the regulations related to SAVE Plan shall have the 
                    force and effect of enacted law.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Codifying SAVE Plan Act''.

SEC. 2. CODIFYING THE SAVE PLAN.

    The provisions of parts 682 and 685 of title 34, Code of Federal 
Regulations, (relating to the SAVE Plan), as amended by the final 
regulations published by the Department of Education in the Federal 
Register on July 10, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 43820), shall have the force 
and effect of enacted law.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      46,399,000
<SECURITIES>                                36,610,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            83,515,000
<PP&E>                                       7,488,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,982,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,777,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,461,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (83,197,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                93,777,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,127,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,628,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             365,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,473,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,473,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,473,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.71)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<CIK>                            0001051827
<NAME>                           MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-27-1998
<CASH>                                            2,627
<SECURITIES>                                909,723,922
<RECEIVABLES>                                12,967,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            922,694,420
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              922,694,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        12,970,498
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                 773,196,000
<COMMON>                                    136,527,922
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                922,694,420
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             13,051,420
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              13,051,420
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          13,051,420
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 13,051,420
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        


</TABLE>
06-5015-cr

USA v. Stewart et al.

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE 

 SECOND CIRCUIT

 

_______________________________________________ 

 

At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York,

on the 19 day of November, two thousand and nine. th

PRESENT: John M. Walker, Jr.,

Guido Calabresi,

Robert D. Sack,

Circuit Judges.

______________________________________________

United States of America, 

Appellee-Cross-Appellant,

 

ORDER 

v. Docket Number: 06-5015-cr (L)

Lynne Stewart, Mohammed Yousry, Ahmed Abdel Sattar,

Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

______________________________________________

Appellant Lynne Stewart moves for "Reconsideration of Forthwith Surrender," and an

emergency stay of forthwith surrender pending the resolution of this motion for reconsideration. 

Appellant Mohammed Yousry moves for an "immediate stay of [the Court's] Order directing the

district court to order his forthwith surrender ...," and a stay pending further consideration of this

motion. The Government has filed a memorandum in opposition to the motions together with a

letter from the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Upon consideration,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, based in part upon the assertions contained in the

submissions of the Government, the motions are DENIED.

FOR THE COURT,

__________________

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

Clerk
No. 64847.

#### Langfelder, Homma & Carroll, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/24346, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of piano benches similar in all material respects to those the subject of *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 144, C.D. 2169), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 58975.

protests 230949-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### D. P. Bushnell & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James A. Francis, hereby certify that, on this date, I caused a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing to be served by way of U.S. mail, first-class and postage pre-paid, 

upon the following individuals: 

Timothy P. Creech, Esquire 

Satzberg, Trichon, Kogan 

& Wertheimer, P.C. 

1818 Market Street, 30th Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 

BY: ______________________________ 

JAMES A. FRANCIS, ESQUIRE 

 MARK D. MAILMAN, ESQUIRE 

 JOHN SOUMILAS, ESQUIRE 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 Land Title Building, 19th Floor 

100 South Broad Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19110 

 (215) 735-8600 

Dated: September 17, 2003 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 35-2 Filed 09/17/2003 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH STAFFORD, an individual,)

) 2:04-cv-0047-GEB-PAN

Plaintiff, )

) RESPONSE TO PARTIES’ REQUEST

) FOR ASSIGNMENT OF SETTLEMENT

v. ) JUDGE

) 

UNITED TREASURES, INC., a )

Washington corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On August 26, 2005, the parties filed a Stipulation and

Proposed Order (“Stipulation”) intended to effectuate having a

magistrate judge preside over a settlement conference in this action. 

The parties state in the Stipulation that their previously filed

request for a settlement conference judge was denied “because of the

proximity of the trial date.” (Stipulation at 1.) The parties

indicate since “the trial was re-set on August 24 to begin on

October 4, 2005,” there is now enough time for a settlement conference

to be scheduled.

Unfortunately, the time gap between now and the rescheduled

trial may not provide a magistrate judge sufficient time to serve as

settlement judge in this action in light of other matters on a

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB Document 136 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

magistrate judge’s docket; just 35 days exist between now and the

trial commencement date. I consider a three month gap sufficient for

selection of a settlement judge from the Clerk’s Office “Automated

Case Assignment System,” but that system will not be used because of

the closeness of the impending trial commencement date. Nor will I

contact the assigned magistrate judge to ascertain if his docket

permits him to preside over the parties’ requested settlement

conference. The parties, however, have leave to contact the courtroom

duty clerk for the assigned magistrate judge to determine if his

docket allows him to serve as settlement judge in this action. If

this magistrate judge is unavailable, the parties will have to explore

non-federal court options.

Dated: August 29, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB Document 136 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 2
S.IU'C¥ #: 001!3 

ACTUAL AIR EMISSIONS 

CALENDAR YEAR 2011 

DM Date l'ebl"'lttry l8, 21111 

&IU'C¥ N.-: CLIO INC. 

&aru A41/Nn: 4615 VISCOUNT AVE 

Collllld: ACCOUNTS PAY ABLE, BOC DESIGN 

lltOi SO!JRml 9TDJRTIIAN PRY Q·JAW! 

TSP: 0. OO'i to1al toos 

S02: 0. OOOb to1al tons 

VOC: ~"!.'> to1al tons 

NOX: 0. totaltoos 

PB: 0,0 total tons 

CO: o. 0 ft'{ to1al tons 

'!ij)R DRY 9£Wj! S9U&CES ONLj'! 

(J) 

·~ •• ___ tohllUHIII ~~PF:J"IIOiEuJIIIUd X.0033 •tollS) 

_. ....... (2)_,......, 

DO OIIIJ) 

If you were not Ia buabless please at 0.80 lor each criteria poll:lltut 111111 ntun. form 

·.so2: ·--s--'~~~¥f2R-"-'~ 

voC:·· ...,.c.· ·---~7<1"'~'~"'~-+f~~tli
* 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 February 13, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11462 Conference Calendar

CLINTON CODY BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RONALD R. LACY, Dr.; SHARON WOOLERY, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CV-46

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Clinton Cody Brown, Texas prisoner # 775240, appeals the district court’s judgment entered in favor of the defendants following a jury trial of Brown’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Brown alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by causing him to be exposed to and to contract tuberculosis from a fellow inmate. On appeal, Brown contends that (1) the district court erredin refusing to permit him to read into the record, during crossexamination of defense experts, medical pamphlets and treatises and (2) the defense experts committed fraud and misrepresentationNo. 05-11462 -2- by testifying falsely regarding the relationship between tuberculosis and Mycobacterium Avium Complex, an avian disease. Brown has not provided a transcript of the trial or any pretrial hearing. The absence of transcripts prevents us from reviewing Brown’s arguments concerning matters or rulings that occurred at transcribed proceedings. See Richardson v. Henry , 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 1990).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN MANUEL TORRES VALENCIA,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 72618
Agency No. A090

- 521

- 994

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2019 **

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Juan Manuel Torres Valencia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 72618

We have jurisdiction under 8 U .S.C. § 1252

. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2014)

. We deny the petition for review

. Torres Valencia fails to challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum and

withh olding of removal claims. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072,

1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to those claims.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Torres

- Valencia failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Aden v.

Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 ( 9th Cir. 2009)

. We reject Torres Valencia’s
contention that the BIA failed to consider the country conditions evidence

submitted

. See Larita

- Martinez v. INS , 220 F.3d 1092, 1095

- 96 (9th Cir. 2000)
(holding that petitioner must overcome presumption that BIA considered all th e
relevant evidence)

. Torres Valencia’s motion to hold the case in abeyance (Docket Entry

No. 22) is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
p.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

198) IV-E-72 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:57 PM Sheet 198 of 242 
r \ 

^

0SU% 

Mssy 

P.2 

fl-Qlr- I | 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

OCT T 1988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Visit to Chrysler 

FROM: F. Peter Hutchins, Mechanical Engineer > 

Standards Development and Support Brane 

TO: The Record 

In response to a request by Chrysler, EPA personnel 

visited Chrysler's emission test facility in Highland Park on 

September 15 to see Chrysler's recently installed refueling 

emission test equipment. EPA personnel, visiting Chrysler were 

John Polasek, Carl Fuller and Peter Hutchins. Chrysler 

personnel showing the equipment were Jim Furlong, Gary Dawson, 

Allen White and Arnold Weibel. 

The test facilities shown consisted of a new SHED, fueling 

cart (dispensed fuel temperature and dispensing rate are 

controlled in the cart - fuel is not stored in the cart), fuel 

drain cart and separate control room. The new facilities are 

located in a room which was constructed inside of an existing 

building. All electrical equipment not located in the control 

room is constructed of explosion-proof components. The control 

room contains the emission analyzers and a computer programmed 

to control all functions of a test once the test vehicle is in 

the SHED and the fuel nozzle has been inserted in the filler 

neck. Multiple sample collection probes are available to 

facilitate emission source identification. Chrysler chose an 

in-SHED fuel hose and nozzle design so as to accommodate a wide 

range of vehicle fillneck locations. The fuel supply hose, 

recirculation hose, air supply for nozzle activation, and 

thermocople wiring are enclosed in large flexible hose. The 

intent of the enclosing hose is to trap any hydrocarbons 

, ,-AO-A' 

..wi'A-

\

 r~ 

'-:•> 
P.3 

•? *""' 

escaping from the fuel hoses and/or the nozzle in the exterior 

hose and to allow purging by a stream of air. Chrysler is 

presently debugging the system. Chrysler reports that the 

facility was ordered approximately 14 months ago. The reported 

cost is just under $600,000. 

The facility appears to be very well suited for both the 

development of onboard systems and for the routine collection 

of onboard refueling emissions data. EPA personnel reminded 

Chrysler personnel of problems experienced by EPA in the areas 

of fuel hose permeability and fuel leaks at the nozzle when EPA 

had used an in-SHED nozzle and hoses. Chrysler's use of an 

enclosing hose with air purge may resolve the problems of SHED 

contamination experienced by EPA. 

6391W
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

George Bridgette,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0436 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

D. Runnels, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff has requested that the court issue writs of habeas

corpus ad testificandum and that the Clerk of the Court issue

four subpoenas.

The court can issue writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5). Petitioner has not shown cause for

issuance of the requested writs.

“The clerk shall issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in

blank, to a party requesting it, who shall complete it before 

service.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). A court “on behalf of which 

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 48 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

the subpoena was issued shall enforce” a party’s duty to “take 

reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense in a

person subject to” a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). 

Plaintiff does not state why he needs four subpoenas.

I therefore deny plaintiff’s September 15, 2005, request for

four writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum and deny the request

for four subpoenas.

So ordered. 

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 48 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 47806.

#### Protest 894055-G of Butler Bros. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the antimony articles in question were held dutiable as household utensils, not plated, at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed. It was further stipulated that certain of the merchandise in question consists of metal animal figures, chains, and mechanical pencils similar to those involved in *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20). In accordance therewith the metal figures and chains were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339, and the pencils were held dutiable under paragraph 1550, at the same rates as those imposed by the collector.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

David Ray Williams,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0998 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

C. Furguson, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoOctober 11, 2005, defendant requested an extension of time

to file and serve a dispositive motion. Good cause appearing,

defendant’s request is granted and defendant’s time is extended

until 30 days from the date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: October 13, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00998-LKK -EFB Document 23 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60010

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Cadrius Baker, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:20-CR-97-1

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Following a bench trial, Cadrius Baker was convicted of: making a 

false statement while acquiring, or attempting to acquire, a firearm; making 

a false statement concerning information in an official record; and possession 

of a firearm by a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6), 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 1, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60010 Document: 00516953115 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023
No. 23-60010

2

(n), and 924(a)(1)(A). He contends the district court erred by denying his 

request for a Guideline § 3E1.1 adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. 

Because the sentencing court is in a unique position to evaluate 

defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, great deference is afforded the 

court’s finding: our court will “affirm the denial of a reduction for 

acceptance of responsibility unless it is without foundation, a standard of 

review more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard”. United States 

v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1017 (5th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted); see Guideline 

§ 3E1.1 cmt. n.5. 

Baker does not meet this standard. The court’s rejection of the 

requested adjustment was based on an implicit adverse credibility finding we 

will not disturb. See United States v. Spires, 79 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 1996)

(explaining decisions concerning acceptance of responsibility will almost 

always be upheld because they are heavily dependent on credibility 

determinations). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-60010 Document: 00516953115 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2023