alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P.1 

OAR Box 1818 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

20) ll-C-17 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:44 PM Sheet 20 of 79 
P.2 

JUL 2 I 1987 

Honorable Jake Garn, Ranking Minority Member 

Senate Appropriations 

Subcommittee on HUD-Independent Agencies 

505 Senate Dirksen 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Garn: 

In the Conference Committee Report for the 1987 fiscal year 

budget, the conferees requested that the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA)" provide Congress with certain 

background information regarding the regulation of refueling 

emissions from motor vehicles, as detailed in the House 

Appropriations Committee Report. The House Appropriations 

Committee expressed concern that the Agency may not have 

developed sufficient data with which to properly assess the 

desirability of a nationwide refueling control program. As a 

consequence, EPA was directed to: 1) review the need for and 

effectiveness of a nationwide refueling control program, 2) 

evaluate the costs and benefits of alternatives to assure a 

cost-effective strategy, 3) assure that requirements of the 

Federal Motor Vehicle -ifety Standard 301 or potential defect 

problems related to on, -'.>ard controls are adequately resolved, 

and 4) address the effects of fuel volatility on refueling 

controls. Tn addition, the House Appropriations Committee 

asked that information regarding the above issues and all of 

the rulemaking support materials be provided to Congress 

concurrently with EPA's submission of the proposal for Federal 

Register publication. 

I am pleased to provile our proposal to control refueling 

emissions and the regul^cory support materials to Congress, as 

requested (see enclosure:";}. I would like to assure the members 

of Congress that the p: oosed action is the culmination of an 

intensive analysis to itify the most appropriate form for 
P.3 

controlling refueling emissions, and that all the concerns 

expressed by the Appropriations Committee have been carefully 

considered. As always, we will be carefully considering all 

comments received in the upcoming public comment period and 

public hearing before proceeding with further regulatory action 

in this area. 

Sincerely, 

(Original signed by L.M. Lhamas ) 

Lee M. Thomas 

Enclosures
Case 2:04-cv-01208-GEB -KJM   Document 91    Filed 11/30/05   Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-01208-GEB -KJM   Document 91    Filed 11/30/05   Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-01208-GEB -KJM   Document 91    Filed 11/30/05   Page 3 of 3

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T19:25:46-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
1Petitioner did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT NOBLE : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. : No. 05-4955

 :

JAMES GRACE, et al. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2006, the Report and Recommendation of United

States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Smith is APPROVED and ADOPTED,1 the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (Document 1) is DISMISSED, and there is no basis for the issuance of a certificate

of appealability. This case should be CLOSED for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Juan R. Sánchez 

Juan R. Sánchez, J.

Case 2:05-cv-04955-JS Document 9 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 1
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 50714 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Jaime Pando,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas US D C No. 7:22

- CR

- 69

- 1

**___________________________ ___**  Before **Smith, Higginson,** and **Engelhardt,** C ircuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Jaime Pando appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and distribute, five grams or more of metham phet a mine (“meth”)

. Finding no error, we affirm.
Pando maintains that the district court erred by refusing a mitigating

role adjustment even though he acted as a minor participant for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2

. Pando contends that during the time of his arrest, a co
-

**____________________ _** 

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

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 11, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50714 Document: 00516816694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023No. 22

- 50714

2 conspirator gave him the meth to attempt to dis tance himself from the offense conduct. Pando states tha t the drug operation was relatively small and that his actions were dissimilar compared to th ose of other partici pants

. Pando aver s he was not the source of the meth , nor did he receive a larger share of the drug proceeds. He also posits that he is not the master mind of the conspiracy and did not perform tas ks crucial to the success o f the enterprise.
Whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant is a factual deter mination reviewed for clear error. United States v. Gomez

- Valle , 828 F.3d 324 , 327 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted)

. “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record read as a whole .” Id. “[W]hen a sen tence is based on an activity in which a defendant was actually involved, § 3B1.2 does not require a reduction in the base offense level even though the defendant ’ s activity in a larger conspiracy may have been minor or minimal .” United States v. Stanford , 823 F.3d 814 , 852 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
The record shows Pando was sentenced based only on the activity in which he was involved, specifically the quantit y of meth found on him at the arrest and that he admitted having sold and purchased. Although Pando allege d the meth belonged to a co
- conspirator , he failed to provide evidence rebutting the presentence report’s contrary conclusion

. See United States v. Taylor , 277 F.3d 721 , 725

– 27 (5th Cir. 2001)

. In addition, Pando does not point to evi dence indicating the roles of his co

- conspirator s or showing that his role was limited to transpor tation and storage. Therefore, t he district court did not clearly err in denying Pando a mitigating role. See United States v. Torres

- Hernandez , 843 F.3d 203, 209

– 10 (5th Cir. 2016).
**AFFIRMED**

**.** Case: 22-50714 Document: 00516816694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2023
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4382 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4382

  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to provide for 
          environmental infrastructure in East Point, Georgia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2024

  Mr. Ossoff introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to provide for 
          environmental infrastructure in East Point, Georgia.

    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 ``East Point Water Infrastructure 
Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. EAST POINT, GEORGIA.

    Section 219(f)(136) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1261; 136 Stat. 3817) is 
amended by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting ``$20,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
Process flow diagram for the use of the new chemical-sites controlled by 

others
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4401 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4401

 To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
 ensure that the small business regulatory budget for a fiscal year is 
             not greater than zero, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2024

  Mr. Marshall (for himself, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Budd, Mr. Braun, and Mr. 
 Scott of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
  and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
 ensure that the small business regulatory budget for a fiscal year is 
             not greater than zero, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Small Business Regulatory Reduction 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION RULEMAKING COSTS TO SMALL 
              BUSINESS CONCERNS.

    (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration shall ensure that the small business regulatory budget 
for a fiscal year is not greater than zero.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the last day of a fiscal 
year, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall 
submit to Congress a report on any regulations issued by other Federal 
agencies that have an impact on small business concerns. Such report 
shall include rules issued during the fiscal year preceding and the 
fiscal year following the date of the report and such rules shall be 
disaggregated by the issuing Federal agency.
    (c) Small Business Regulatory Budget Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``small business regulatory budget'' means the cost to small 
business concerns (as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act 
(15 U.S.C. 632)) of rulemaking (including the cost of a new rule and 
any modification to or repeal of a rule) by the Administrator of the 
Small Business Administration.
                                 <all>
```
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4477 

To reauthorize the Second Chance Act of 2007. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2024 

Mrs. CAPITO (for herself, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. 

TILLIS, Mr. WELCH, Mr. CRAMER, and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Second Chance Act of 2007. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Chance Reau5 thorization Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS. 

7 (a) STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY DEMONSTRATION

8 PROJECTS.—Section 2976 of title I of the Omnibus Crime 

9 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10631) 

10 is amended— 

11 (1) in subsection (b)— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4477 IS

1 (A) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (B) in paragraph (8), by striking the pe4 riod at the end; and 

5 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(9) treating substance use disorders, including 

7 by providing peer recovery services, case manage8 ment, and access to overdose education and overdose 

9 reversal medications; and 

10 ‘‘(10) providing reentry housing services.’’; and 

11 (2) in subsection (o)(1), by striking ‘‘2019 

12 through 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2025 through 2029’’. 

13 (b) GRANTS FOR FAMILY-BASED SUBSTANCE ABUSE

14 TREATMENT.—Section 2926(a) of the Omnibus Crime 

15 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 

16 10595a(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘2019 through 2023’’ 

17 and inserting ‘‘2025 through 2029’’. 

18 (c) GRANT PROGRAM TO EVALUATE AND IMPROVE

19 EDUCATIONAL METHODS AT PRISONS, JAILS, AND JUVE20 NILE FACILITIES.—Section 1001(a)(28) of the Omnibus 

21 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 

22 10261(a)(28)) is amended by striking ‘‘2019, 2020, 2021, 

23 2022, and 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2025 through 2029’’. 

24 (d) CAREERS TRAINING DEMONSTRATION

25 GRANTS.—Section 115(f) of the Second Chance Act of 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4477 IS

1 2007 (34 U.S.C. 60511(f)) is amended by striking ‘‘2019, 

2 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2025 

3 through 2029’’. 

4 (e) OFFENDER REENTRY SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND

5 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COLLABORATION PROGRAM.—Section 

6 201(f)(1) of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (34 U.S.C. 

7 60521(f)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘2019 through 2023’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘2025 through 2029’’. 

9 (f) COMMUNITY-BASED MENTORING AND TRANSI10 TIONAL SERVICE GRANTS TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZA11 TIONS.—Section 211(f) of the Second Chance Act of 2007 

12 (34 U.S.C. 60531(f)) is amended by striking ‘‘2019 

13 through 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2025 through 2029’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
INVT     InvestAmerica,  Inc.

#148  -  4664  Lougheed  Highway,  Burnaby,  B.C.  V5C  5T5   Canada   Tel (604)
473-9331   Fax  (604)  473-9334

Russells  Systems  Limited                                    October  20,  2000
Suite  61,  Grosvenor  Close
Shirley  Street
Nassau,  New  Providence
Bahamas

Dear  Sirs:

Reference  is  made  to our agreement of November 22, 1999 pursuant to which you
acquired  preferred  stock  of  INVT which is convertible into 54,040,165 common
shares  of  INVT  (the  "Shares").

This  confirms  that  you have agreed that the following sale restrictions shall
apply  during  the  5  year  period  following  November  22, 2000 (the "Lock-Up
Period"):

1.     Unless  specifically  authorized  in writing by the Board of Directors of
INVT  (or  an executive officer authorized by the Board) you shall not sell more
than  the  following  number of Shares during the following specified intervals,
subject  to  the  following  rights  of  cumulation  and  early  termination:

     Year  1  -  3  of  Lock-Up  Period:     .15%  (ie. 81,060 Shares) per month
     Year  4  -  5  of  Lock-Up  Period:     .30% (ie. 162,120 Shares) per month

2.     The  above  monthly  rate  of  sale shall be cumulative for 6 months (ie.
Shares which become eligible for sale in any month may be sold during that month
or in any of the 5 months following).  Any Shares which are not sold during such
6  month  period  may  not  be  sold  until  expiry  of  the  Lock-Up  Period.

3.     If  during the Lock-Up Period INVT stock trades for $10 or more per share
for  60  consecutive  days  at  an  average  volume of 250,000 shares per day or
greater,  the  above  sale restrictions shall be terminated at the conclusion of
such  60  day  period.

You  agree  that  if  you  violate  the  terms  of  this agreement, INVT will be
entitled, without limitation, to obtain injunctive relief against you as well as
any other legal and equitable remedies available, and you will be liable for any
and  all  legal  fees  incurred  by  INVT  in  pursuing  such  remedies.

Please  acknowledge  your  agreement  to  the  foregoing  terms  by  signing and
returning  a  copy  of  this  letter.

Yours  very  truly,

INVESTAMERICA,  INC.          ACKNOWLEDGED  AND  AGREED  by
                              Russells  Systems  Limited
By: /s/ signed                By: /s/ signed
Douglas  Smith,
President  and  CEO
June 24, 2015 

Mr. Peter Stuart 

85 Highland Avenue 

Norwalk, CT 06853 

Dear Mr. Stuart: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 5, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2121), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply 

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 
2 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
ex4-10.htm


    
      

    

     

    Exhibit 4.10

    


     

    LETTER
AGREEMENT WITH SHAOXIONG HUANG

     

    October
12, 2006

    


    Mr.
Shaoxiong Huang

    11
Clinton Court

    Holmdel,
New Jersey 07733

    


    Dear
Sean:

    


    I am
writing you this letter to express Inner Mongolia Production Company’s (the
“Company”) appreciation for the very good and professional work you have been
performing for us.

    


    To show
such appreciation and reward you for your efforts, I am pleased to advise you
that effective as of October 1, 2006, we have increased your salary by 10% to an
annual rate of $66,000.

    


    Also,
effective as of September 29, 2006, the Company hereby grants you an option
(“Option”) to purchase 6,000 Class B Units; as such term is defined in the
Company’s Operating Agreement, at $ 9.50 per Class B Unit. You shall become
vested in the right to exercise this Option with respect to 40% of the Class B
Units on the first anniversary of the Option grant and an additional 20% of the
Class B Units on each subsequent anniversary of the Option grant for the next
three years of employment; provided, that additional vesting shall terminate
upon the date of any termination of your employment for Cause or with Good
Reason and all vesting shall be accelerated upon any termination of your
employment without Cause, without Good Reason or upon Death or
Disability.  The Option shall expire on the tenth anniversary of the
Option grant date.  The Option shall be subject to all additional
terms of the stock option plan under which it was issued and the option
agreement between you and the Company evidencing the Option, if
any.   You shall also be eligible to receive such additional
stock option or stock awards as may be approved by the Board of Managers from
time to time.

    


    We look
forward to a successful future for the Company and to your continuing
contributions to the Company.

    Sincerely,

    


    /s/ Frank C.
Ingriselli                                                      

    Frank C.
Ingriselli

    President
& CEO

    Agreed
and Accepted:

    


    /s/ Shaoxiong
Huang                                                      

    Shaoxiong
Huang
1 

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 

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

BERNHEIM

GUTIERREZ

& 

MCCREADY

255 NORTH

LINCOLN

STREET

DIXON

CA 95620 

PHONE

(707) 678-4447 

FAX

(707) 678-0744 

DORIS McCREADY, SBN 148832 

BERNHEIM, GUTIERREZ & McCREADY 

255 North Lincoln Street 

Dixon, CA 95620 

Ph.: (707) 678-4447 

Fax: (707) 678-0744 

e-mail: law@bernheimlaw.net

 

Attorneys for the Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PAMELA ANN DAVIS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF AMERICA and DOES 1-20, 

 Defendants. 

NO. CIV. S-04-1196 WBS/GGH 

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a) 

DEPT: JUDGE SHUBB 

STIPULATION 

Plaintiff PAMELA ANN DAVIS and Defendant The Prudential Insurance Company 

of America hereby stipulate and agree that, pursuant to the parties’ settlement, this entire action 

may be, and hereby is, dismissed with prejudice. Each party to pay its own costs of suit. 

 

Date:________________ _________________________________ 

 Doris McCready, Attorney for Plaintiff 

Date:________________ _________________________________ 

 Mark T. McClenning, 

 Attorney for Defendant 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: August 30, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-01196-WBS-GGH Document 11 Filed 08/31/05 Page 1 of 1
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Strategic Internet Investments, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I, Ralph Shearing, Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                 
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

|Date: | October 23, 2008 |  | /s/
      Ralph Shearing
|----- | ---------------- |  | ------------------------
|      |                  |  | Ralph Shearing, Director

---
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RHONDA LEE LELAND,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1514 LKK KJM P

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 11, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01514-LKK -KJM Document 10 Filed 08/24/05 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 11, 2005, are adopted in full;

and 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: August 23, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/lela1514.800

Case 2:04-cv-01514-LKK -KJM Document 10 Filed 08/24/05 Page 2 of 2