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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4333 

To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability if a student on 

whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes disabled. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2024 

Mr. VANCE (for himself, Mr. COONS, and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability 

if a student on whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes disabled. 

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 ‘‘Domenic and Ed’s Law’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPAYMENT OF LOANS TO PARENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 437(d) of the Higher 

7 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087(d)) is amended 

8 by inserting ‘‘or becomes permanently and totally disabled 

9 (as determined in accordance with regulations of the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:09 Jun 14, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4333.IS S4333

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4333 IS

1 retary), or if the student is unable to engage in any sub2 stantial gainful activity by reason of any medically deter3 minable physical or mental impairment that can be ex4 pected to result in death, has lasted for a continuous pe5 riod of not less than 60 months, or can be expected to 

6 last for a continuous period of not less than 60 months,’’ 

7 after ‘‘dies,’’. 

8 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub9 section (a) shall apply to any outstanding loan that is re10 ceived by a parent borrower before, on, or after the date 

11 of the enactment of this Act, and without regard to the 

12 onset date of the disability or impairment. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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

GREGORY ANDREW HALL, No. CIV-S-04-1275 MCE/CMK 

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

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 May 9, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days.

///

Case 2:04-cv-01275-MCE -CMK Document 20 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

2

Neither party has 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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 9, 2005 are

adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: June 30, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01275-MCE -CMK Document 20 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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O KISSENGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:04-cv-0878-GEB-DAD P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

SECOND REQUEST FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY

REQUESTS

Defendants filed a request for a second extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s

requests for production, interrogatories and admissions. Good cause appearing, Defendants shall 

respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests on or before July 5, 2007.

DATED: June 5, 2007.

/davi0878.36disc(2)

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 77 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 1
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

I, Scott V. Fainor,  President and Chief Executive  Officer and Eugene T. Sobol,
Senior  Executive Vice President,  Chief  Operating  Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of KNBT  Bancorp,  Inc. (the  "Company"),  hereby  certify,  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     1.   The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company  for the  quarterly
          period ended March 31, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

     2.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.


DATE:    May 17, 2004                      BY: /S/  Scott V. Fainor
       ----------------                        ---------------------------------
                                               Scott V. Fainor
                                               President and Chief Executive
                                               Officer



DATE:    May 17, 2004                      BY: /S/  Eugene T. Sobol
       ----------------                        ---------------------------------
                                               Eugene T. Sobol
                                               Senior Executive Vice President
                                               Chief Operating Officer
                                               Chief Financial Officer



A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to KNBT Bancorp,  Inc. and will be retained
by KNBT Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.





                                       29
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4511 

AN ACT 

To provide for the crediting of funds received by the National 

Guard Bureau as reimbursement from States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4511 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Guarding Readiness 

3 Resources Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF FUNDS RECEIVED BY NATIONAL 

5 GUARD BUREAU AS REIMBURSEMENT FROM 

6 STATES. 

7 Section 710 of title 32, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following new sub9 section: 

10 ‘‘(g) TREATMENT OF REIMBURSED FUNDS.—Any 

11 funds received by the National Guard Bureau from a 

12 State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of 

13 Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands as reimbursement 

14 under this section for the use of military property— 

15 ‘‘(1) shall be credited to— 

16 ‘‘(A) the appropriation, fund, or account 

17 used in incurring the obligation; or 

18 ‘‘(B) an appropriate appropriation, fund, 

19 or account currently available for the purposes 

20 for which the expenditures were made; and 

21 ‘‘(2) may only be used by the Department of 

22 Defense for the repair, maintenance, replacement, or 

23 other similar functions related directly to assets used 
3 

†S 4511 ES

1 by National Guard units while operating under State 

2 active duty status.’’. 

Passed the Senate December 19 (legislative day, December 16), 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4511 

AN ACT 

To provide for the crediting of funds received by 

from States. the National Guard Bureau as reimbursement
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 37714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Sixty-Sixth Meeting: Special Committee 135 (SC 135)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Sixty-Sixth Meeting Notice of Special Committee 135.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
sixty-sixth meeting of the Special Committee 135.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 27th-October 29th from 9:00 
a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th 
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0663.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or 
Sophie Bousquet, Program Director, RTCA, Inc., sbousquet@rtca.org, 
(202) 330-0663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of the Special Committee 135. The agenda 
will include the following:

October 27-29, 2015

    1. Chairmen's Opening Remarks, Introductions.
    2. Approval of Summary from the Sixty-Fifth Meeting--(RTCA Paper 
No. 127-15/SC135-702).
    3. Review New Change Proposals.
    4. Review Working Group Activities.
    5. New/Unfinished Business.
    6. Establish date/locations for Next SC-135 Meetings.
    7. Closing and Adjourn.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-16245 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.B 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 on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2006, of
El Paso Exploration
& Production Company (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gene T.
Waguespack, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Controller, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. /s/ Gene T. WaguespackGene T. WaguespackSenior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer,Treasurer and Controller(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)May 5, 2006
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso
Exploration
& Production Company and will be retained by El Paso Exploration & Production
Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 49650.

#### Protests 95035-K, etc., of Charles M. Thomas (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

No oral testimony was produced. The collector in both protests reported that the wheat was part of shipment “arriving at New York under various T. and E. entries from Buffalo,” and was described by the appraiser as damaged and unfit for human consumption, that owing to seepage and other causes the grain was damaged by the absorption of moisture and that *267the importer applied to the Bureau of Customs for an allowance under section ■563 (a), which application was denied, the Commissioner not being satisfied that the damage was a casualty within the meaning of said section. It.appeared that the wheat was loaded on barges at Buffalo and transshipped through the canal ■system to Brooklyn. The plaintiff cited T. D. 44791 in his brief and attached thereto an affidavit of the vice president of a towing company, relating to the facts. This affidavit, however, was not considered' by the court as it was not ■part of the record. Counsel for defendant also cited *Wagner Bros. Feed Corp.*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 102, C. D. 212) and *Charles T. Smith, Inc.*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 39, C. D. 789) relating to similar wheat which was imported .•at Buffalo and transshipped to New York. On the record presented the court held that duty was properly assessed on the wheat in its condition at the time it was entered at Buffalo and not in its condition when it was unloaded from the barges in New York. The protests were therefore overruled.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-21092

Conference Calendar

 

TCHEWAM LILY MUKWANGE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF HOUSTON,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-2849

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

August 21, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tchewam Lily Mukwange appeals from the denial of her motion

for relief pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) following the grant

of summary judgment for the City of Houston (“the City”) on

Mukwange’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We lack

jurisdiction to review the grant of summary judgment itself, as

Mukwange did not file a timely notice of appeal from that

judgment. See United States v. Carr, 979 F.2d 51, 55 (5th Cir.
No. 01-21092

-2-

1992). Regarding the denial of her Rule 60(b) motion, Mukwange

contends that the district court erred by failing to recognize

that it had erroneously interpreted the law of municipal

liability and that the district court should have granted her

Rule 60(b) motion and granted her the relief she sought in her

complaint. 

The denial of Mukwange’s Rule 60(b) motion was not an abuse

of discretion. See First Nationwide Bank v. Summer House Joint

Venture, 902 F.2d 1197, 1200 (5th Cir. 1990). The district court

correctly understood the law of municipal liability and nothing

in Mukwange’s pleadings or the materials she submitted

established that her arrests and detentions arose from any

constitutionally infirm policy, practice, or custom. See Johnson

v. Moore, 958 F.2d 92, 94 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
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

LIONELL E. THOLMER

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1368 GEB CMK P

vs.

CHERYL PLILER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed his second request for an extension of time to file an amended

complaint pursuant to the court’s order of October 26, 2005. Good cause appearing, the request

will be granted. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time is granted; and

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

amended complaint. 

DATED: February 28, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01368-GEB -CMK Document 18 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3875]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) will submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).
    Title: Request for Special Priorities Assistance.
    Agency Form Number: BIS-999.
    OMB Approval Number: 0694-0057.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection of 
information.
    Burden: 600 hours.
    Average Time per Response: 30 minutes.
    Number of Respondents: 1,200.
    Needs and Uses: The information collected on BIS-999 from defense 
contractors and suppliers, is required for the enforcement and 
administration of the Defense Production Act and the Selective Service 
Act to provide Special Priorities Assistance under the Defense 
Priorities and Allocation System Regulations.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households, business or other for-
profit organizations.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, e-mail address, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#581c392e313c070a372b2c333d2a1837353a763d3728763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c783a6b1aea39895a8b4b3aca2b587a8aaa5e9a2a8b7e9a0a8b1">[email protected]</span></a>, or fax number, (202) 395-7285.

    Dated: March 1, 2007.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-3875 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 26, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-15551 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20501-KMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JUAN JAVIER CARDENAS, 

a.k.a. Maceo, 

Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(July 26, 2011)

Before WILSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Juan Javier Cardenas appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 121 months

following his plea of guilt to conspiring to commit fraud in connection with access

devices, 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2), and fraud in connection with the trafficking of

unauthorized access devices, id. § 1029(a)(2). Cardenas argues that his sentence is

procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain why it did

not order his federal sentence to run concurrently with any state sentence that

might be imposed for pending state charges against him. We affirm.

We review sentences for reasonableness, which is deferential standard of

review for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct.

586, 591 (2007). 

Cardenas’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. At the sentencing hearing,

the district court stated that it had considered the parties’ statements, the

presentence investigation report, and the statutory factors for sentencing, 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court imposed the sentence requested by the parties. 

Cardenas later requested that the district court provide him credit for time served

in state custody awaiting trial on state charges, but Cardenas did not request that

his federal sentence run concurrently with any future state sentence. The district

court did not abuse its discretion.

AFFIRMED.

2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DAVID DRESDNER, M.D., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-798

)

PINELLAS HEMATOLOGY AND )

ONCOLOGY, P. A., )

)

Respondent. )

)

Opinion filed November 7, 2018. 

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit 

Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit for 

Pinellas County; sitting in its appellate 

capacity. 

Marie Tomassi and Bradley A. Muhs of 

Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, 

O'Neill & Mullis, P. A., St. Petersburg,

for Petitioner.

Jamie Moore Marcario and Michael

Coughlin of Thrive Law, P.A., St. 

Petersburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Denied. 

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~** 

# «ourt of**§ppeaI~** 

# for tbejf 

# eberaI «irruit
BARON MONTERO JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, 

### v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.Appellee. 2011-5025 Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 10-CV-215, Judge Susan G. Braden. ON MOTION

ORDER The United States moves for a lO·day extension of time, until May 30, 2011, to file its informal response brief, Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted.

# -------,---'- JONESv. US 

## HAY 1 B2011 Date
cc: Baron Montero Jones FOR THE COURT lsI Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 2

Armando 

### A. Rodriguez-Feo, Esq. 

### FILED 

### s21 

# ,.s. COUR!" OFAPPEALS FOR THE**FEDE~M.** CIRCLIIT 

### MAY 1

## 82011

JAft HORlW.Y CL£II(
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

ADRIAN E. WHITAKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1794 FCD GGH P

vs.

W.N. SADY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By an order filed January 6, 2006, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and

return to the court, within thirty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on

defendants. That thirty day period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way

to the court’s order.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

Case 2:04-cv-01794-FCD-GGH Document 22 Filed 06/19/06 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

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 6/19/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

whit1794.fusm

Case 2:04-cv-01794-FCD-GGH Document 22 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2