alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AIPT-0285
AIPT-0286
AIPT-0287
AIPT-0288
AIPT-0289
AIPT-0290
AIPT-0291
AIPT-0292
AIPT-0293
AIPT-0294

AIPT-0296
AIPT-0297
AIPT-0298

AIPT-0300
AIPT-0301
AIPT-0302
AIPT-0303
AIPT-0304
AIPT-0305
AIPT-0306

AIPT-0308
AIPT-0309
AIPT-0310
AIPT-0311
AIPT-0312
AIPT-0313
AIPT-0314
AIPT-0315
AIPT-0316
AIPT-0317
AIPT-0318
AIPT-0319
AIPT-0320

AIPT-0322
AIPT-0323
AIPT-0324

AIPT-0326

AIPT-0328

AIPT-0330
AIPT-0331
AIPT-0332
AIPT-0333
AIPT-0334
AIPT-0335
AIPT-0336
AIPT-0337
AIPT-0338
AIPT-0339
AIPT-0340
AIPT-0341
AIPT-0342
AIPT-0343
AIPT-0344
AIPT-0345
AIPT-0346
AIPT-0347
AIPT-0348
AIPT-0349
AIPT-0350
AIPT-0351

AIPT-0353
AIPT-0354
AIPT-0355
AIPT-0356
AIPT-0357
AIPT-0358

AIPT-0360

AIPT-0362


AIPT-0365
AIPT-0366
AIPT-0367
AIPT-0368
AIPT-0369
AIPT-0370
AIPT-0371
AIPT-0372
AIPT-0373
AIPT-0374
AIPT-0375
AIPT-0376
AIPT-0377
AIPT-0378

AIPT-0380
AIPT-0381
AIPT-0382
AIPT-0383
AIPT-0384
AIPT-0385
AIPT-0386
AIPT-0387
AIPT-0388
AIPT-0389
AIPT-0390
AIPT-0391
AIPT-0392
AIPT-0393
AIPT-0394
AIPT-0395
AIPT-0396
AIPT-0397
AIPT-0398
AIPT-0399
AIPT-0400
AIPT-0401
AIPT-0402
AIPT-0403
AIPT-0404
AIPT-0405
AIPT-0406
AIPT-0407
AIPT-0408
AIPT-0409
AIPT-0410
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2195 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the scope of procedural 

rights of members of the uniformed services with respect to their employment and reemployment rights, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2021 

Mr. CICILLINE (for himself, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, and Mr. 

GOLDEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the scope 

of procedural rights of members of the uniformed services with respect to their employment and reemployment 

rights, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Protecting the Employ5 ment Rights of Servicemembers Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2195 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING SCOPE OF EMPLOY2 MENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MEM3 BERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES. 

4 (a) CLARIFICATION REGARDING DEFINITION OF

5 RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.—Section 4303(2) of title 38, 

6 United States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ before ‘‘The term’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub9 paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(B) Any procedural protections or provisions 

11 set forth in this chapter shall also be considered a 

12 right or benefit subject to the protection of this 

13 chapter.’’. 

14 (b) CLARIFICATION REGARDING RELATION TO

15 OTHER LAW AND PLANS FOR AGREEMENTS.—Section 

16 4302 of such title is amended by adding at the end the 

17 following: 

18 ‘‘(c)(1) Pursuant to this section and the procedural 

19 rights afforded by subchapter III of this chapter, any 

20 agreement to arbitrate a claim under this chapter is unen21 forceable, unless all parties consent to arbitration after a 

22 complaint on the specific claim has been filed in court or 

23 with the Merit Systems Protection Board and all parties 

24 knowingly and voluntarily consent to have that particular 

25 claim subjected to arbitration. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2195 IH

1 ‘‘(2) For purposes of this subsection, consent shall 

2 not be considered voluntary when a person is required to 

3 agree to arbitrate an action, complaint, or claim alleging 

4 a violation of this chapter as a condition of future or con5 tinued employment, advancement in employment, or re6 ceipt of any right or benefit of employment.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     UT

<LEGEND>                      The schedule contains summary financial
                              information extracted from Consolidated
                              Balance Sheet, Income Statement and Statement of
                              Cash Flows for Consolidated
                              Edison, Inc. and is qualified in its entirety
                              by reference to such financial statements
                              and the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001047862
<NAME> Consolidated Edison, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000

<S>                               <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-END>                      Jun-30-1999

<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-Mos

<BOOK-VALUE>                      Per-Book

<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>         10,754,552

<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>       460,735

<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>            2,365,736

<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>          555,451

<OTHER-ASSETS>                    808,006

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    14,944,480

<COMMON>                          557,754

<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>         888,366

<RETAINED-EARNINGS>               4,697,439

<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>    5,564,040

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             37,050

<PREFERRED>                       212,563

<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>              4,200,120

<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                   0

<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>            0

<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>    258,498

<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>     350,000

<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>            0

<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>       36,013

<LEASES-CURRENT>                  2,617

<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>    4,283,579

<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>     14,944,480

<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>         3,255,667

<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>              149,939

<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>        2,697,575

<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>        2,847,514

<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>           408,153

<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                1,766

<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>    409,919

<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>          160,077

<NET-INCOME>                      249,842

<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>       6,796

<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>     243,046

<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>          244,548

<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>         151,663

<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>            1,156,331

<EPS-BASIC>                     1.06

<EPS-DILUTED>                     1.06



</TABLE>
#### Charles E. SMITH, as Municipal Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert Ross DAVIS, Respondent.

No. 39115.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 4, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1970.

*518Gordon B. Johnston and James T. Vocelle of Vocelle & Gallagher, Vero Beach, for petitioner.

L. B. Vocelle, Vero Beach, C. Wendell Harris, Merritt Island and C. E. Thompson, Cocoa Beach, for respondent.

Allison E. Folds, Gainesville, of Fagan, Crouch, Anderson & Folds, as amicus curiae.

DREW, Justice.

This case is here for review on a Petition for Certiorari accompanied by a certificate of the District Court that the decision1 is one which passes on a question of great public interest.2

The sole question argued here and the one certified here by the district court is:

> “Is a person charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired, as a violation of a municipal ordinance, entitled to a trial by jury for such violation.”

The district court answered this question in the affirmative. Judge Reed, in an able dissenting opinion reached a contrary result.3 We are of the view that Judge Reed correctly decided the question presented to that court and the question certified here. Moreover we are in complete accord with the reasons pronounced by him in reaching the conclusion he did. We, therefore, adopt his opinion as the decision of this Court.

The questioned decision is quashed and the cause remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

ROBERTS and CARLTON, JJ„ and SCHULZ, Circuit Judge, concur.

ERVIN, C. J., dissents with opinion:

1

. Davis v. Smith, 227 So.2d 342 (4th Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1969).

2

. Fla.Const. art. Y, § 4(2), F.S.A.

3

. See Judge Feed’s dissenting opinion, 227 So.2d beginning on page 344.

ERVIN, Chief Justice

(dissenting).

I am unable to agree to the foregoing opinion not only for the reasons expressed in the District Court majority opinion (227 So.2d 342), but for my views expressed in special opinions and dissents in earlier cases decided here on the subject of constitutional guarantees applicable in municipal cases of the seriousness of the one here involved. See, for example, my concurring opinion in City of Fort Lauderdale v. King, 222 So.2d 6, page 9.
Treasury approves Pennsylvania’s plan to invest $200 million of CPF 

funding in broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality 

internet to homes and businesses as part of President Biden’s Investing in 

America Agenda.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Pennsylvania

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Program Summary: $200 million for Broadband Infrastructure (72% of CPF allocation)

 Locations to Be Served: 44,000 (estimated)

 Program Description: Pennsylvania’s Broadband

Infrastructure Program is a competitive grant program

designed to fund two types of broadband infrastructure

projects: large-scale regional projects and line extensions.

Eligible large-scale regional projects will provide reliable

broadband to broad across the Commonwealth, while

eligible line extension projects will extend existing last-mile networks to areas that lack 

adequate internet service.

‒ The program is designed to provide internet service with speeds of 100/100 Mbps 

symmetrical to households and businesses upon project completion.

‒ A key priority of CPF is helping to advance President Biden’s goal of affordable, high-speed 

internet for everyone in America. Already, President Biden’s Investing in America agenda 

has delivered affordable high-speed internet to 16 million American households, through 

CPF and the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program, saving each household at least $30 per 

month and supporting one of the strongest and fastest economic recovery in history.

 Key State Contact: The Pennsylvania Broadband Development Authority (PBDA)

Pennsylvania Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

As reported by Pennsylvania, 

estimates show that 

investments made using the 

Capital Projects Fund will 

serve ~15% of locations still 

lacking high-speed internet 

access in the state.

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information
Maryland Department ofthe Environment

1800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Dear Secretary Summers:

On May 8, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the

Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Maryland Department ofthe Environment

pertaining to Regulation .23 “Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Vehicle Refinishing” under

COMAR 26.11.19 “Volatile Organic Compounds for Specific Processes.” The SIP revision amends

Maryland regulations to establish volatile organic compound (VOC) content limits for coating andcleaning solvents used in vehicle refinishing and standards for coating application, work practices,

monitoring, and recordkeeping. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and

technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Emlyn Vélez-Rosa,

Office ofAir Program Planning, at (215) 814-2038 or velez-rosa.emlyncepa.gov. She is the principal

contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

(CcO 6&9Th

Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Division

cc: George S. Abum, Director

Air & Radiation Management Administration, MDE

Deborah Rabin, Manager

Air Quality Planning Program, MDE

Printed on 100% recycled/recyclablepaper with 100% post-consumerfiber andprocess chlorinefree.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
#### Edward Harley CAWTHON, Appellant, v. Robert H. COFFER, Jr., Mauricio Rubio and Ruth Osterman, Appellees.

No. 70-838.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 19, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
Agreement to Amend the Agreement between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica to Improve International Tax
Compliance and to Implement FATCA

The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Costa
Rica, hereinafter “the Parties”;

Recalling the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of the Republic of Costa Rica to Improve International Tax Compliance and to
Implement FATCA, signed at San Jose on November 26, 2013, hereinafter, “the FATCA
Agreement”, and the Supplemental Agreement thereto, signed at San Jose on March 20, 2019;
Desiring to amend the FATCA Agreement to take into account the Agreement between the
Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica
for the Exchange of Information Relating to Taxes, done at San Jose on April 17, 2018, hereinafter,

“the TIEA”;

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1

1. The second paragraph of the preamble of the FATCA Agreement shall be deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following:

“Whereas, the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of the Republic of Costa Rica for the Exchange of Information Relating to Taxes,
signed at San Jose on April 17, 2018 (the “TIEA”), authorizes the exchange of information for
tax purposes, including on an automatic basis:”

2. Article 2, paragraph 1 of the FATCA Agreement shall be amended by deleting “Article 1”
and replacing it with “Article 6”.

3. Article 3, paragraph 6 of the FATCA Agreement shall be amended by deleting “Article 7”
and replacing it with “Article 12”.

Article 2

1. This Agreement shall enter into force upon entry into force of the TIEA.

In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective
Governments, have signed this Agreement.

Done at San Jose, in duplicate, in the English language, this 24th day of August, 2020.

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA:

Shanes. (uy Up

Sharon Day Elian Vill ‘alverde
p. 1



# OAR Box 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 58 ) ll-C-1 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/2008 10:22:19 AM

Sheet 58 of 147P. 2

"* # s arm \

^IPRdt-0 

## "J UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENCY Offic e o fAi rQualityPlannin g an d Standard s Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1 

# ir-c-1 6

AU G I 0 I99 3 

# snwGU v Mr . LarryB . Feldcam p Bake r & Bott s On e Shel l Plaz a 91 0 Louisian a Houston , T X 77002-499 5 Dea r Mr . Feldcamp : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r Jul y16 , 199 3 lette r regarding participatio n o n th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency' s (EPA's ) Ne wSourc e Revie w(NSR ) Reform Subcommittee . A s indicate d i n you r letter , th e EPAannounce d o n Jul y7 , 1993 , th e establishmen t o f a NS R ReformSubcommitte e unde r th e auspice s o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t AdvisoryCommitte e (CAAAC ) (5 5 FR 46993 ) whic hwa s establishe d pursuan t t o th e Federa l AdvisoryCommitte e Ac t ( 5 U.S.C . app I) . Th e Subcommittee' s purpos e i s t o provid e independen t advic e an d counse l t o th e EPAo n polic yan d technica l issue s associate d wit hreforming th e NS R rules . Sinc e th e NS R Reform Subcommitte e wa s establishe d unde r th e auspice s o f th e CAAAC , o f whic hyo u ar e a member , an d becaus e o f th e significan t amoun t o f NS R activit yi n Texas , I woul d lik e t o extend thi s invitatio n t o yo u t o participat e a s a membe r o f th e Subcommittee . Th e nex t NS R ReformSubcommitte e meeting i s schedule d fo r Septembe r 27-28 , 1993 , a t th e Sherato n Universit y Center , 280 0 Middleto n Avenue , Durham , Nort hCarolin a 27705 , telephon e (919 ) 383-8575 , telefax(919 ) 383-8495 . I loo k forward t o you r participatio n i n th e NS R refor m process . I als o loo k forward t o seeing yo u i n Ashevill e i n Septembe r an

d appreciat e th e invitatio n t o participat e i n th e SONREE L Conference . An yquestion s concerning th e Subcommitte e o r it s activitie s can b e directe d t o Davi d Solomon , Chief , Ne wSourc e Revie wSection , a t (919 ) 541-5375 . Sincerely , ORIGINAL

SIGNED BY JAMES B. WE1G0LD rf.A-/' Lydi a N . Wegma n Deput yDirecto r Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning

an d Standard s
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2173 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to wastewater 

infrastructure workforce development, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2021 

Mr. STANTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with 

respect to wastewater infrastructure workforce development, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Wastewater Workforce 

5 Investment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE IN7 VESTMENT. 

8 (a) REPORT TO CONGRESS ON PUBLICLY OWNED

9 TREATMENT WORKS WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.—SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:01 May 21, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2173.IH H2173

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2173 IH

1 tion 104(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

2 (33 U.S.C. 1251(g)) is amended— 

3 (1) by striking ‘‘manpower’’ each place it ap4 pears and inserting ‘‘workforce’’; and 

5 (2) by amending paragraph (4) to read as fol6 lows— 

7 ‘‘(4) REPORT TO CONGRESS ON PUBLICLY

8 OWNED TREATMENT WORKS WORKFORCE DEVELOP9 MENT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of en10 actment of the Wastewater Workforce Investment 

11 Act, the Administrator shall submit to the Com12 mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

13 House of Representatives and the Committee on En14 vironment and Public Works of the Senate a report 

15 containing— 

16 ‘‘(A) an assessment of the current and fu17 ture workforce needs for publicly owned treat18 ment works, including an estimate of the num19 ber of future positions needed for such treat20 ment works and the technical skills and edu21 cation needed for such positions; 

22 ‘‘(B) a summary of actions taken by the 

23 Administrator, including Federal investments 

24 under this Act, that promote workforce develop25 ment to address such needs; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2173 IH

1 ‘‘(C) any recommendations of the Adminis2 trator to address such needs.’’. 

3 (b) ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.—Section 604 of the 

4 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1384) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(d) WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE

7 DEVELOPMENT.—A State may reserve each fiscal year up 

8 to 1 percent of the sums allotted to the State under this 

9 section for the fiscal year to carry out workforce develop10 ment, training, and retraining activities described in sec11 tion 104(g).’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1627

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Paul Lopez-Aguilar, * District of Nebraska.

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 22, 2005 

Filed: December 28, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Paul Lopez-Aguilar pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess

with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and possessing a firearm during a drugtrafficking crime, see 21 U.S.C. § 846; 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), the district court1

sentenced him to 228 months in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release.

Lopez-Aguilar did not appeal. The government later filed a Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Lopez-Aguilar’s sentence based on his substantial
-2-

assistance, and the district court reduced his sentence from 228 months to 135 months

imprisonment. Lopez-Aguilar appeals, arguing in a brief filed under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), that the district court abused its discretion by not

imposing an even lower sentence. We conclude that the district court’s refusal to

depart further is unreviewable. See United States v. Coppedge, 135 F.3d 598, 599

(8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (challenge to extent of Rule 35(b) reduction held

unreviewable, because appeal was not based on any criteria listed in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(a)); cf. United States v. Noe, 411 F.3d 878, 885 (8th Cir.) (extent of downward

departure is not reviewable), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 184 (2005); United States v.

Williams, 324 F.3d 1049, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (refusal to depart is not

reviewable unless defendant makes substantial showing that court’s decision was

based on unconstitutional motive). 

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
J. 

Based upon our review of the record on appeal, we conclude 

that the district court did not err in determining that appellant was not 

entitled to relief. NRS 34.724(2)(c) provides that a post-conviction petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus is the only remedy available to challenge the 

computation of time served, and therefore, a writ of mandamus is not 

available to challenge the application and calculation of appellant's 

statutory credits. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in 

denying the petition for a writ of mandamus. 2Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

Hardesty 

Otakolt - 4j4/ 

• 

ParragUirre 

2The district court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus on the 

merits, but should not have reached the merits of appellant's claim 

pursuant to NRS 34.724(2)(c). However, we affirm because the district 

court reached the right result in denying the petition. See Wyatt v. State, 

86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970). 

3We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude 

that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent 

that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

2 

(A,„ 
cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge 

Nathanial Johnson 

Attorney General/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan 

Checklist Item #24 

Does application indicate whether the plan sponsor is requesting approval from the PBGC of a proposed 

partition under. Section 4233 of ERISA? See Section 6.02. 

The Application tiled on behalf of the Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan does 

not include a request for partition under Section 4223 of ERISA. 

Document #24 - 1 - 

SWORCCPP-000166