alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
Social Security: Sustained Effort Needed to Improve Management and
Prepare for the Future (Chapter Report, 10/27/93, GAO/HRD-94-22).

Failure to meet the Social Security Administration's (SSA) management
challenges could have serious consequences.  SSA provides benefits to
about 47 million people today, and it will have to provide benefits and
services to many more people in the future.  The baby boomers are aging,
and beginning in 1995, Social Security earning and benefits statements
will be required for all workers.  SSA is already seeing the effects of
a significant rise in disability cases, an area already plagued by major
processing delays.  This third in a series of GAO reports examines SSA's
current operations and its preparations for the future.  GAO concludes
that if SSA cannot establish the necessary long-range plans, efficiently
manage computer-systems modernization, address work-force needs, and
control its finances, it risks significant deterioration in its ability
to serve the public efficiently and effectively.  GAO summarized this
report in testimony before Congress; see: Social Security
Administration: SSA Needs to Act Now to Assure World-Class Service, by
Jane L. Ross, Associate Director for Income Security Issues, before the
Subcommittee on Social Security, House Committee on Ways and Means.
GAO/T-HRD-94-46, Oct. 28, 1993 (10 pages).

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HRD-94-22
     TITLE:  Social Security: Sustained Effort Needed to Improve 
             Management and Prepare for the Future
      DATE:  10/27/93
   SUBJECT:  Financial management systems
             Social security benefits
             Disability benefits
             Computerized information systems
             Federal social security programs
             Personnel management
             Human resources utilization
             Management information systems
             Information resources management
IDENTIFIER:  Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Program
             Medicare Program
             Medicaid Program
             Food Stamp Program
             DOL Black Lung Program
             Supplemental Security Income Program
             SSA Agency Strategic Plan
             SSA Unified Planning System
             SSA Operations Service Delivery Plan
             SSA Information Systems Plan
             SSA Management Intern Program
             SSA Middle Management Program
             SSA Earnings Records Maintenance System
             
************************************************************************

We regret that the full text of this item is presently unavailable.

See the GAO FAQ - Section 2.0 for printed copy ordering information.
The FAQ is automatically retrieved with all WAIS search results or 
can be obtained by sending e-mail to: [email protected]
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES ARTHUR MULGREW,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

M. McDONALD, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-17737

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00767-MCE

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner James Arthur Mulgrew appeals from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Mulgrew contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition as

FILED

JUL 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-17737

untimely. We need not decide whether Mulgrew was entitled to any form of

tolling to render his petition timely because the district court lacked jurisdiction to

consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 982

(9th Cir. 2010) (“§ 2254(a) does not confer jurisdiction over a state prisoner’s

in-custody challenge to a restitution order imposed as part of a criminal sentence”);

Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2005) (reviewing court may

affirm on any ground supported by the record). 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas America Public #12-2003 Limited
Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            August
      12, 2008
No. 51402.

#### Protest 116095-K of Norman G. Jensen (Pembina).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
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 * This matter was determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIM CHUN and SRY CHOU, )

) No. CIV-S-04-1098 GEB (DAD)

Plaintiffs, )

) ORDER*

v. )

) 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On May 27, 2005, Defendant moved for dismissal on the

grounds that it is not a proper party defendant and that service of

process has not been effected. Alternatively, Defendant moved for

summary judgment. No opposition to Defendant’s motion was filed.

Since the factual and legal assertions in Defendant’s motion 

have not been controverted, and Defendant’s specific averments

demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service

eo nomine is based on a tort, it is obvious that Plaintiffs have sued

the wrong defendant. “[T]he United States is the only proper party

defendant in [a tort] action.” Kennedy v. United States Postal Serv.,

Case 2:04-cv-01098-GEB-DAD Document 25 Filed 06/30/05 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

145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1988). Therefore, Defendant’s motion to

dismiss is granted and this action is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01098-GEB-DAD Document 25 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS TOMAS GARCIA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1779 MCE DAD P

vs.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file and serve a reply to

respondents’ supplemental answer pursuant to the court’s order of July 21, 2005.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s August 19, 2005 request for extension of time is granted; and

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve a reply to respondents’ July 21, 2005 supplemental answer.

DATED: August 25, 2005.

DAD:13:kf

garc1779.111reply

Case 2:04-cv-01779-MCE -DAD Document 21 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 51964.

#### Glasgo Finishing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 126714-K, etc. (St. Albans, etc.).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
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

DESMOND LOEB,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0547 EJG GGH P

vs.

A. COLON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s July 1, 2005, motion for sanctions. Plaintiff

alleges that on April 15, 2005, he served defendants with discovery requests to which they failed

to respond. On July 20, 2005, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion. Defendants

state that on June 30, 2005, defense counsel received a letter from plaintiff stating that he had

propounded discovery requests but had received no responses. A review of the documents

logged into defense counsel’s office showed a request for production of documents was received

from plaintiff on April 16, 2005.

Defense counsel then tried to locate plaintiff’s April 16, 2005, discovery requests,

but they could not be found. On July 5, 2005, defense counsel wrote to plaintiff and advised him

that the requests had been misplaced, but told him that if he re-served his requests they would be

answered in a timely manner even if the discovery deadline had passed. Defense counsel

Case 2:04-cv-00547-JAM-GGH Document 26 Filed 08/09/05 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

received plaintiff’s discovery requests on July 19, 2005.

There is no evidence indicating that defense counsel acted in bad faith or without

substantial justification. In addition, plaintiff’s discovery requests are in the process of being

responded to. Under these circumstances, sanctions are not warranted. However, defendant

must act expeditiously in making good faith responses.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 1, 2005, motion for

sanctions is denied.

DATED: 8/8/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

loeb547.san

Case 2:04-cv-00547-JAM-GGH Document 26 Filed 08/09/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 99.1
                           ============

        Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bliss
Essentials Corp. (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Gelfand,
Chief Executive Officer of Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.


Date:  August 6, 2004           /s/ Thomas Gelfand
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer of
                              Bliss Essentials Corp., Registrant
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

HOWARD ALAN ZOCHLINSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 

et al.,

Defendants.

CIV. S-04-1702 DFL PAN PS

ORDER

-o0oOn October 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal

of this court’s September 30, 2005, final judgment and an

incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis. On November

10, 2005, this court directed plaintiff to file a completed “Form

4,” the affidavit required by the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Fed.

R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(A).

Plaintiff timely filed an affidavit and completed Form 4,

which provide that plaintiff receives $795 per month disability

Case 2:04-cv-01702-DFL-PAN Document 32 Filed 12/12/05 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

benefits and no other income; his only bank account holds $79;

his only assets are two motorcycles and a car, all inoperable,

with a combined value of $50; that plaintiff’s expenses total

$790 monthly and he has no dependents. 

Plaintiff’s affidavit demonstrates that because of

poverty he cannot pay or give security for court costs and still

be able to provide herself with the necessities of life. See

Adkins v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

in pursuit of his appeal is granted.

So ordered.

Dated: December 12, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01702-DFL-PAN Document 32 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 2
'-··' 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. f. ; J 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

JAMES KEARNS 

Respondent. 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0683 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No. 2012S0275132 

RULE 26(f) REPORT 

The parties, pursuant to §13.217 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.P.R. 13.217), Federal 

' 

Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(f) and the Order Setting Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling 

Conference and Directing Rule 26(f) Planning and Submission, hereby files its Rule 26(f) 

Report, Complainant states the following: 

1. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.217 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), a teleconference was held with 

Respondent on December 29, 2014. At the teleconference, the parties discussed the nature and 

basis of each party's claims, the possibility of resolving all or part of the case, the scope and type 

of discovery and the place of the venue for the hearing in this matter. 

2. The Complainant initiated settlement discussions on December 29, 2014. 

3. The parties propose that the parties will exchange the discovery disclosures required by 

Rule 26(a)(1) by January 9, 2015. 

4. The parties propose that initial discovery requests will be made by February 9, 2015. The 

parties will have until March 11, 2015, to respond to initial discovery requests. 

1 

; </ .. 
5. The parties propose that the parties serve any follow-up discovery requests by March 16, 

2015. The parties will have until April15, 2015, to respond to follow-up discovery requests. 

6. The parties propose that any objections to discovery requests must be made to the 

requesting party within two weeks of the discovery request. 

7. The parties propose that all dispositive motions must be filed by Apri130, 2015. 

8. The Complainant proposes that a trial the week of May 12, 2015, in the New York area 

would be best. 

Respectfully submitted this 61

h day of January 2015. 

Senior ttorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

gd~ JOHN.}it. MOSS, Esq. 

Attorney for Respondent 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Rule 26(f) Report Submitted by Complainant FAA 

was mailed by facsimile and Federal Express to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

DOT, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(FAX) (202) 366-7536 

and via Federal Express to: 

John O.C. Moss, Esq. 

Moss & Moss, LLP 

220 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 

New York, New York 10001 

and 

James Kearns 

270 Union Street, Apt. 2 

Brooklyn, NY 11231 

and the original and one copy via Federal Express to: 

Hearing Docket 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

W shington, D.C. 20590 

Dated 

3
No. 6714.

#### MRS. M. A. CAUGHEY vs. WM. McCUBBIN, ET AL.

Opinion and decree, May 29th, 1916.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “A,” No. 114,593. Honorable T. *'C.*W. Ellis, Judge.

Florence Loeber, for plaintiff and appellant.

Lemle, Jones & Moreno, for defendant and appellee.

Dart, Kernan & Dart, H. W. Robinson, attorneys.

His Honor, CHARLES F. CLAIBORNE,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

In accordance with the consent of parties herein:

It is ordered that the exceptions herein filed by Guy J. Ray be overruled and that the judgment herein in his favor be reversed and that this cause be remanded for further proceedings, the cost of appeal to be paid by. said Guy J. Ray.

Judgment reversed by consent and case remanded.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Angelo COWARD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6019.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 27, 2001.

Decided April 17, 2001.

Calvin Angelo Coward, pro se. Jerri Ul-rica Dunston, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Calvin Angelo Coward appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to file a belated notice of appeal in his criminal case. We have reviewed the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Although the district court erroneously analyzed Coward’s motion under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) (addressing the appeal periods in civil cases), its ultimate conclusion that it lacked the authority to extend the appeal period was correct. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(1), (4) (allowing the district *116court to extend the ten-day criminal appeal period by an additional thirty days). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order on other grounds. *See United States v. Coward,*No. CR-90-52-4-H (E.D.N.C. Dec. 14, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS.*
Before Chief Judge Rao,

March 28, 1968

No. R68/21.

reappraisements R64/22547, etc. (New York).

#### Lollytogs, Ltd. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those in Lollytogs, *Ltd.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 608, Reap. Dec. 11073), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise (children’s wearing apparel) and that such value is the appraised unit value, net packed, less the commission of Swedish Trading Co., Ltd., of Hong Kong as indicated on the invoices.
April 14, 1948

No. 52273.

Suit 4568.

#### Guy B. Barham Co. (A. Sensenbrenner Sons) *v.*United States.

C. D. 1029 reversed and remanded January 27, 1948. C. A. D. 385.
June 24, 1941

No. 46116.

Suit 4326.

#### United *States*v. *General Dyestuff Corp.*

C. D. 337 reversed. C. A. D. 170.
No. 63633.

protest 229541-K (New York).

#### The A. W. Fenton Co. and Cunard S. S. Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

*448Opinion by

Rao, X

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that tbe merchandise consists of other linoleum the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Pacific Overseas Co. et al.*(42 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 559), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 44009.

#### Protests 815614-G-10542, etc., of Geo. Borgfeldt Corp. et al (New Orleans, etc.).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4398 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a microemployer 

pension plan startup credit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Ms. HASSAN (for herself and Mr. BUDD) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for a microemployer pension plan startup credit. 

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 ‘‘Retirement Investment 

5 in Small Employers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MICROEMPLOYER PENSION PLAN STARTUP CRED7 IT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 45E of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following new subsection: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4398 IS

1 ‘‘(g) CREDIT FOR MICROEMPLOYERS.— 

2 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a qualified 

3 microemployer— 

4 ‘‘(A) subsection (a) shall be applied by 

5 substituting ‘100 percent’ for ‘50 percent’, and 

6 ‘‘(B) subsection (b)(1) shall be applied by 

7 substituting ‘$2,500’ for ‘$500’ in subpara8 graph (A) thereof. 

9 ‘‘(2) QUALIFIED MICROEMPLOYER.—For pur10 poses of this subsection, the term ‘qualified micro11 employer’ means an employer which would be an eli12 gible employer if section 408(p)(2)(C)(i)(I) were ap13 plied by substituting ‘10’ for ‘100’, but only if the 

14 eligible employer plan established or maintained by 

15 such employer, under the terms of the plan, accepts 

16 payment of the matching contribution under section 

17 6433.’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

19 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

20 December 31, 2026. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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                Partnership. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                  Freddie M. Kotek                                    |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Freddie                  M. Kotek                                        |
| Title: | Chief                  Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| Date:  | May                  12, 2006                                            |