alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States of America 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Office of Commissioner 

Christine S. Wilson 

January 31, 2022 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

United States Senate 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20150 

The Honorable Roger Wicker 

United States Senate 

555 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510 

Dear Senators: 

I write regarding an article in the Washington Post describing an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

plan to require taxpayers to use facial recognition to access their IRS tax accounts through the 

IRS website.1 According to the Washington Post, taxpayers seeking to access their records could 

be required to record videos of their faces and send them to private contractor ID.me to confirm 

their identities. The IRS reportedly has entered into an $86 million contract with ID.me to 

provide these services. The Post reports that users have already experienced glitches and delays.2 

I am concerned about the IRS’s potential use of facial recognition as described in these reports. 

Although facial recognition software has benefits, “researchers say that identity-verification 

errors can block a person from accessing vital services or allow an impostor to get through.”3 I 

am not confident that use of facial recognition by the IRS in the manner reported will adequately 

protect the privacy of taxpayer records, and am concerned that this use in fact could result in 

significant harm. Federal auditing rules require ID.me to store the biometric data for at least 

seven years, according to the news report, but no legislation governs how ID.me can use this 

1 Drew Harwell, “The IRS wants to scan your face,” WASHINGTON POST (Jan. 28, 2022), 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/01/27/irs-face-scans/

2 Id. 

3 Id. 
biometric data. And malicious actors could hack the database and use the biometric data for 

nefarious purposes. As the article notes, thousands of photos of Americans’ faces were exposed 

after a surveillance company working with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol was hacked in 2019. 

I applaud your leadership on privacy issues in the Senate and request that you look into the IRS 

plan and the proposed contractor. To the extent the Federal Trade Commission can provide 

assistance with these inquires, I am at your disposal to assist. 

All best wishes, 

Christine S. Wilson 

Commissioner 

cc: Senator Elizabeth Warren 

309 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Bill Cassidy 

520 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10111 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN CARLOS ESPINAL-MARTINEZ, also known as Carlos Aspinal-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:01-CR-78-1-C

-------------------- June 19, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Carlos Espinal-Martinez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Espinal-Martinez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Espinal-No. 02-10111 -2- Martinez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Espinal-Martinez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The motion for a summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government need not file an appellee’s brief. AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.
#### Alfred S. BESADE, Sr., and Monica E. Besade, Appellants, v. Linda R. BESADE, Appellee.

No. 73-1100.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 14, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
FINANCIAL   STATEMENTS  OF  CONTINENTAL   AMERICAN   TRANSPORTATION,   INC.  AND
SUBSIDIARIES  AT AND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000866457
<NAME>                        Joseph J. Tomasek                         
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1                        
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1996                          
<CASH>                                           640,079
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 12,251,267
<ALLOWANCES>                                     924,958
<INVENTORY>                                      335,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              16,330,629
<PP&E>                                        87,060,003
<DEPRECIATION>                                30,051,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                79,447,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         27,562,163
<BONDS>                                       60,031,607
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                       8,428,106
<OTHER-SE>                                    (1,952,519)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  79,477,950
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              36,801,423
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 34,625,869
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 117,085
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,616,818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,150,969)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     477,755
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (673,214)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.21)
        



</TABLE>
Case 2:16-mc-00002-SRB Document 4 Filed 01/14/16 Page 1 of 2 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

) 

Federal Trade Commission, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Apollo Education Group, Inc., 

and 

The University Of Phoenix, Inc., 

Respondents. 

) Case No.MC16-00002-PHX-SRB 

ORDER GOVERNING 

COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL 

INVESTIGATIVE DEMANDS 

ISSUED IN FURTHERANCE OF A 

LAW ENFORCEMENT 

INVESTIGATION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Upon consideration of the Federal Trade Commission’s Unopposed Petition for an Order 

Governing Compliance with Civil Investigative Demands Issued in Furtherance of a Law 

Enforcement Investigation, the supporting declaration from Thomas J. Widor, and memorandum 

of law, this Court finds that the civil investigative demands (CIDs) to Apollo Education Group, 

Inc. and the University of Phoenix, Inc. are within the lawful authority granted to the 

Commission by Congress, were issued in accordance with procedural requirements, and seek 

evidence that is relevant and material to the investigation. The Court further finds that the CIDs 

at issue constitute “subpoena[s] issued for a law enforcement purpose” and that good cause 

1 
Case 2:16-mc-00002-SRB Document 4 Filed 01/14/16 Page 2 of 2 

warrants an order requiring the Companies to comply with the CIDs without providing notice 

prior to disclosure pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §§ 1232g(b)(1)(J)(ii) and 1232g(b)(2)(B). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondents Apollo Education Group, Inc. and the 

University of Phoenix, Inc. shall comply with the Commission’s CIDs by producing responsive 

“education records,” as that term is defined by 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4), subject to any remaining 

defenses and privileges; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT such production shall commence within fourteen 

(14) days from the date of this Order and be completed within sixty (60) days of the date of this 

Order, or at such later time(s) as may be agreed upon by the parties, subject to any remaining 

defenses and privileges; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Apollo Education Group, Inc., University of 

Phoenix, Inc., and any of their officers, directors, employees, agents, or attorneys shall comply 

with the Commission’s CIDs without disclosing to any person the contents of the civil 

investigative demands or any education records furnished in response to the civil investigative 

demands. 

Dated this 14th day of January, 2016. 

2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         June 7, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 4, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 436 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-159, CP2018-229.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-12253 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
United States of America

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20580

Office of Commissioner 

Christine S. Wilson

January 31, 2022

The Honorable Ron Wyden

United States Senate

221 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington DC 20150

Dear Senator Wyden:

I write regarding an article in the Washington Post describing an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

plan to require taxpayers to use facial recognition to access their IRS tax accounts through the 

IRS website.1 According to the Washington Post, taxpayers seeking to access their records could 

be required to record videos of their faces and send them to private contractor ID.me to confirm 

their identities. The IRS reportedly has entered into an $86 million contract with ID.me to 

provide these services. The Post reports that users have already experienced glitches and delays.

2

The article notes your concern with this proposal; I share your concern. Although facial 

recognition software has benefits, “researchers say that identity-verification errors can block a 

person from accessing vital services or allow an impostor to get through.”3 I am not confident 

that use of facial recognition by the IRS in the manner reported will adequately protect the 

privacy of taxpayer records, and am concerned that this use in fact could result in significant 

harm. Federal auditing rules require ID.me to store the biometric data for at least seven years, 

according to the news report, but no legislation governs how ID.me can use this biometric data. 

And malicious actors could hack the database and use the biometric data for nefarious purposes. 

As the article notes, thousands of photos of Americans’ faces were exposed after a surveillance 

company working with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol was hacked in 2019.

1 Drew Harwell, “The IRS wants to scan your face,” WASHINGTON POST (Jan. 28, 2022), 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/01/27/irs-face-scans/

2 Id.

3 Id. 
I applaud your leadership on privacy issues in the Senate and request that you look into the IRS 

plan and the proposed contractor. To the extent the Federal Trade Commission can provide 

assistance with these inquires, I am at your disposal to assist.

All best wishes,

Christine S. Wilson

Commissioner
Area Code/County,Count302  Delaware,12806Kent Delaware,2626New Castle Delaware,8777"No Zip Code Reported, Delaware",79Sussex Delaware,3403
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------


                       PAINEWEBBER R&D PARTNERS III, L.P.


                             CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report of PaineWebber R&D Partners III, L.P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-K for the Period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert J. Chersi, Principal Financial Officer of PaineWebber Development Corp.,
as General Partner 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.



/s/ ROBERT J. CHERSI
--------------------
Robert J. Chersi
Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2003
Exhibit 99.3








November 29, 2012Analyst Contact:Andrew Ziola918-588-7163Media Contact:Megan Lewis918-561-5325








ONEOK to Participate in BMO Capital Markets


Utilities and Pipelines Day





TULSA, Okla. - Nov. 29, 2012 - ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) will participate in the 8 th Annual BMO Capital Markets Utilities and Pipelines Day in New York City on Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012.





Pierce H. Norton II, ONEOK executive vice president and chief operating officer, and Robert F. Martinovich, ONEOK executive vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer, will conduct a series of one-on-one meetings with investment-community representatives at the conference.





The materials utilized at the conference will be accessible on the ONEOK, Inc. website, www.oneok.com , on Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012, beginning at 8 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (7 a.m. Central Standard Time).








ONEOK, Inc . (pronounced ONE - OAK) (NYSE: OKE) is a diversified energy company . We are the general partner and own 43 . 4 percent of ONEOK Partners , L.P. (NYSE: OKS), one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships , which is a leader in the gathering , processing , storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S . and owns one of the nation's premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems , connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers.  ONEOK is among the largest natural gas distributors in the United States , serving more than two million customers in Oklahoma , Kansas and Texas.  Our energy services operation focuses primarily on marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S.  ONEOK is a FORTUNE 500 company and is included in Standard & Poor's (S&P) 500 Stock Index .





For information about ONEOK, Inc ., visit the website: www . oneok . com .





For the latest news about ONEOK, follow us on Twitter @ONEOKNews .





# # #
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO
. 09 -23- 00355

- CR

__________________

MARVIN GABRIEL HOLMES , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F21

- 37984

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found Marvin Gabriel Holmes guilty of evading arrest or detention
with previous conviction s , a state jail felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a), (b)(1)(A)

. The jury assessed Holmes’s punishment as a prior felony offender at six years of imprisonment. See id. § 12.425(b)

.2 Holmes ’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that present s counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On April 5, 2024 , we granted an extension of time for Holmes to
fil e a pro se brief. Holmes filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives
an Anders brief and a later

- filed pro se response, an appellate court has two choices

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W. 3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. (citations omitted). Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (Tex. 1988) (citing Anders , 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, and Holmes ’s pro se brief , and we have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe , 178
S.W.3d at 826

– 27. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new3 counsel to re

- brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1
AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice

Submitted on June 5, 2024 Opinion Delivered June 19, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

1 Holmes may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68 .1

.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20580 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

CASE NAME 

Ardagh Group S.A., et al. 

FILE/DOCKET NUMBER 

009356 

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in 

proceeding the appearance of 

D counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below) 

D counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

1:81 counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 

Include the name, address, email address, and telephone 

number of each counsel or representative entering an 

appearance in the above proceeding, 

H. Holden Brooks 

Foley & Lardner LLP 

777 East Wisconsin Avenue 

Milwaukee, WI 53202 

Phone Number: 414-297-5711 

Fax Number: 414-297-4900 

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL 

(H. Holden Brooks) 

2. RESPONDENT(S) OR THIRD PARTY(IES) 

Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons, 

partnerships, corporations, or associations on whose behalf 

this Notice of Appearance is being fi led. 

Amcor Rigid Plastics USA, Inc. do 

H. Holden Brooks 

Foley & Lardner LLP 

777 East Wisconsin Avenue 

Milwaukee, WI 53202 

Phone Number: 414-297-5711 

Fax Number: 414-297-4900 

5. DATE SIGNED 

12/6/2013 

Return this form to: Federal Trade Commission 

Room H-113 

FTC Form 232 (rev 7/11) 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580
#### Bernard A. WIEDER, As Trustee, Appellant, v. HARRIS MORTGAGE, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-337.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 28, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
259 La. 809

#### Paul A. CLEMENT v. CITY OF WESTWEGO et al.

No. 51688.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 15, 1971.

In re: Paul A. Clement, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 250 So.2d 115.

Application denied. We find no error of law in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
263 La. 801

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Joshua CARTER v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53001.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 5, 1972.

In re: Joshua Carter applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Application denied; the showing made by relator does not warrant the relief sought.

BARHAM, J.,

concurs. The defendant did not raise the question of the composition of the jury or the jury venire according to the provisions of C.Cr.P. Art. 535, subds. B(3) and D. He waived that right.