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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3766 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3766

To prohibit any Federal department or agency from requiring any State, 
 or political subdivision thereof, to convert highway signs to metric 
                                 units.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 1994

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit any Federal department or agency from requiring any State, 
 or political subdivision thereof, to convert highway signs to metric 
                                 units.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of 
Transportation or any other Federal department, agency, or 
instrumentality shall take no action requiring, directly or indirectly, 
any State or political subdivision thereof, to convert highway signs on 
any highway, road, or parkway comprising a part of any primary system, 
urban system, secondary system, or Interstate System (as defined in 
sections 101 and 103 of title 23, United States Code) within such State 
to metric units.

SEC. 2. APPROPRIATED FUNDS.

    The Department of Transportation or any other Federal department, 
agency, or instrumentality shall use no appropriated funds to require, 
directly or indirectly, any State, or political subdivision thereof, to 
convert highway signs on any highway, road, or parkway comprising a 
part of any primary system, urban system, secondary system, or 
Interstate System (as defined in sections 101 and 103 of title 23, 
United States Code) within such State to metric units.

                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7016

GARRY DAVID GALLARDO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

R. HUDGINS, Warden, FCI Gilmer,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00020-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: June 3, 2021 Decided: August 10, 2021

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Garry David Gallardo, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Garry David Gallardo, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and 

denying reconsideration.∗

 We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Gallardo v. 

Hudgins, No. 5:20-cv-00020-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 29, 2020; Mar. 17, 2020). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

∗ Although the notice of appeal was received by the district court after expiration of 

the appeal period, Gallardo has provided this Court a declaration under penalty of perjury 

that he gave his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing before the period expired. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)(B). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over the appeal.
AAM-12-100-E December 12, 2011

Exemption No. 10405 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1284

Mr. Michael J. Gullotti

Chief Pilot Gateway Canyons Air Tours, LLC 817 Falcon Way Grand Junction, CO 81506

Dear Mr. Gullotti:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated November 11, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Gateway Canyons Air Tours, LLC (Gateway Canyons) for an exemption to allow Gateway Canyons, which is operating under separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug testing program. The FAA finds that you require relief from part 120 of 14 CFR.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Gateway Canyons.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Gateway Canyons Air Tours, LLC an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Gateway Canyons, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Gateway Canyons are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Gateway Canyons part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on December 31, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7646

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEITH A. DAVIS, a/k/a Black,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-00512-MBS-1)

Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith A. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith A. Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing various postjudgment 

motions regarding his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and 

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2018). First, we deny Davis’s motion to 

voluntarily dismiss his bankruptcy and forfeiture claims because he failed to submit a 

signed dismissal agreement as required by Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). But on appeal, we 

confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 

Davis concedes that his bankruptcy and forfeiture claims were not properly before the 

district court, so he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. 

Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; 

under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). 

Next, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Davis’s motion to 

reconsider the court’s previous denial of his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2018). The district court may only reduce a sentence under 

§ 3582(c)(2) “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment 

based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing 

Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Here, Davis’ Guidelines range was not lowered by 

Amendment 782, which lowered the offense levels for drug offenses by 2 levels, because 

his Guidelines range was based on his status as a career offender. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROGELIO CALDERON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

PHUC LAM, Prison Doctor; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-15731 

D.C. No. 4:18-cv-04384-KAW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted August 17, 2021***

Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Rogelio Calderon appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

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

FILED

AUG 24 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-15731 

§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 

2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants 

because Calderon failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 

defendants were deliberately indifferent to Calderon’s heart issues. See id. at

1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a 

defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health).

Calderon has waived any challenge to the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment on Calderon’s allegations against defendant Lam for falsifying or 

omitting information from Calderon’s medical records, as well as the district 

court’s grant of defendants’ motion to file a supplemental motion for summary 

judgment, because he did not raise them in his opening brief. See Indep. Towers of 

Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e review only issues 

which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.” (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted)); Acosta–Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 

(9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening 

brief are waived).

AFFIRMED.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D16-5526

_____________________________

OTIS JAMES WRIGHT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gulf County.

John L. Fishel, II, Judge.

March 22, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J. and, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Otis James Wright, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                 |                               |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|   |                                                 | /s/                Rodney I. Smith |
|   | Rodney              I. Smith                         |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer and President |
|   |                                   |                                 |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                                   | /s/                Lawrence R. Crews |
|   | Lawrence              R. Crews         |
|   | Chief                Financial Officer |
|   |                                   |
|   | Dated:              April 2, 2007      |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,034,577
<SECURITIES>                                    14,645
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,737
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,000
<INVENTORY>                                     87,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,266,721
<PP&E>                                         542,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                 372,762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,683,745
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          280,833
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,402,798
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,683,745
<SALES>                                        194,758
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               244,758
<CGS>                                          407,123
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  407,123
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,651,760
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             926,555
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,593,713)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,593,713)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,593,713)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)
        

</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3598

To amend the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988 to provide for duty-free

treatment of canned tuna imported into the United States that was

caught by certain vessels and processed in certain facilities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 20, 1993

Ms. SCHENK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988 to provide

for duty-free treatment of canned tuna imported into

the United States that was caught by certain vessels

and processed in certain facilities.

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

3 That the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988 (Public Law

4 100–330; 16 U.S.C. 973–973r) is amended by adding at

5 the end the following new section:

6 ‘‘SEC. 22. IMPORTS OF TUNA.

7 ‘‘(a) DUTY-FREE TREATMENT.—The entry or with8 drawal from warehouse for consumption into the customs
2

•HR 3598 IH

1 territory of the United States of light meat tuna, prepared

2 or preserved in airtight containers in any manner (except

3 in oil), that is produced in any Pacific Island Party shall

4 be eligible for duty-free treatment if it meets the require5 ments of subsection (b).

6 ‘‘(b) ELIGIBILITY.—Tuna shall be eligible for duty7 free treatment under subsection (a) only if it—

8 ‘‘(1) is wholly produced in a processing facil9 ity—

10 ‘‘(A) owned or operated under a joint ven11 ture agreement between citizens of that Pacific

12 Island Party and citizens of the United States;

13 or

14 ‘‘(B) owned by citizens of the United

15 States; and

16 ‘‘(2) was caught—

17 ‘‘(A) by a vessel owned or operated under

18 a joint venture agreement between citizens of

19 that Pacific Island Party and citizens of the

20 United States; or

21 ‘‘(B) by a vessel documented under the

22 laws of the United States.

23 ‘‘(c) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of the Treasury

24 is authorized to issue regulations to carry out this sec25 tion.’’.
3

•HR 3598 IH

Æ
----

----

I Communications

Commission

----

Taux de change de l'euro (1)

5 janvier 2005

(2005/C 3/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: taux de change de référence publié par la Banque centrale européenne.

----

----

Avis du comité consultatif en matière d'ententes et de positions dominantes rendu lors de sa 375e réunion du 14 juin 2004 au sujet d'un avant-projet de décision relatif à l'affaire COMP/A.38.549 — Ordre des architectes belges

(2005/C 3/02)

----

----

Avis du comité consultatif en matière d'ententes et de positions dominantes rendu lors de sa 376e réunion du 21 juin 2004 au sujet d'un avant-projet de décision dans l'affaire COMP/A.38.549 — Ordre des architectes belges

(2005/C 3/03)

----

----

Rapport final du conseiller-auditeur dans l'affaire COMP/38.549 — Ordre des architectes

(élaboré conformément à l'article 15 de la décision 2001/462/CE, CECA de la Commission du 23 mai 2001 relative au mandat des conseillers-auditeurs dans certaines procédures de concurrence — JO L 162 du 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2005/C 3/04)

Le projet de décision appelle les observations suivantes quant au droit d'être entendu:

La Commission a transmis, le 3 novembre 2003, à la suite d'une procédure ex-officio une Communication des griefs à l'encontre de l'Ordre des architectes belges. Cette Communication des griefs établissait que l'instauration de barèmes minimums d'honoraires fixes ou indicatifs porte atteinte aux règles de concurrence.

L'Ordre des architectes a obtenu l'accès au dossier le 2 décembre 2003.

Un délai de dix semaines lui a été accordé pour lui permettre de répondre à la communication des griefs. Celui-ci a transmis ses observations écrites dans le délai imparti.

Sur le plan procédural, l'Ordre des architectes a considéré que son droit de la défense n'était pas entièrement respecté, car il n'avait pas eu accès à un document classé «confidentiel» par la DG de la Concurrence.

Vérification faite, il est apparu que ce document aurait permis l'identification d'une personne ayant remis des informations à la Commission.

C'est donc à juste titre qu'il avait été classé comme «confidentiel», compte tenu de l'obligation de secret qui incombe à la Commission dans un tel cas.

Ceci implique que l'anonymat d'une personne qui lui a remis des informations soit respecté, lorsqu'elle le demande et qu'elle court éventuellement un risque de représailles [Arrêt de la Cour du 7 novembre 1985 (Affaire 145/83) ADAMS/Commission des Communautés Européennes, paragraphes 34 et suivants].

L'Ordre des architectes belges a exercé son droit de se défendre oralement dans le cadre d'une audition qui s'est tenue le 9 février 2004.

Le projet de décision de la Commission ne formule pas d'objections nouvelles à l'encontre de l'Ordre des architectes, par rapport à celles qui sont exposées dans la communication des griefs.

Je considère par conséquent que le droit des parties d'être entendues a été respecté.

Bruxelles, le 16 juin 2004

Serge DURANDE

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ENRIQUE ARELLANO-MEDRANO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1375 

[July 20, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Dan L. Vaughn, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 472010CF000431A.

Enrique Arellano-Medrano, Okeechobee, pro se. 

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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:*                         August 30, 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 August 24, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 87 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-213, CP2018-295.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-18791 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P