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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1555 Indefinitely Postponed Senate (IPS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1555

 To guarantee the timely payment of social security benefits in March 
                                 1996.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 1996

    Mr. Dole (for himself, Mr. Roth, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Domenici) 
 introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read 
               the third time, and indefinitely postponed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To guarantee the timely payment of social security benefits in March 
                                 1996.

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

SECTION 1. TIMELY PAYMENT OF MARCH 1996 SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS 
              GUARANTEED.

    (a) Findings.--
            (1) Congress intends to pass an increase in the public debt 
        limit before March 1, 1996.
            (2) In the interim, social security beneficiaries should be 
        assured that social security benefits will be paid on a timely 
        basis in March 1996.
    (b) Guarantee of Social Security Benefit Payments.--In addition to 
any other authority provided by law, the Secretary of the Treasury may 
issue under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, obligations of 
the United States before March 1, 1996, in an amount equal to the 
monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the Social 
Security Act in March 1996.
    (c) Obligations Exempt From Public Debt Limit.--
            (1) In general.--Obligations issued under subsection (b) 
        shall not be taken into account in applying the limitation in 
        section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code.
            (2) Termination of exemption.--Paragraph (1) shall cease to 
        apply on the earlier of--
                    (A) the date of the enactment of the first increase 
                in the limitation in section 3101(b) of title 31, 
                United States Code, after the date of the enactment of 
                this Act, or
                    (B) March 15, 1996.
                                 <all>
```
----

----

I Aktai, kuriuos skelbti privaloma

----

EUROPOS PARLAMENTO IR TARYBOS REGLAMENTAS (EB) Nr. 1992/2006

2006 m. gruodžio 18 d.

iš dalies keičiantis Tarybos reglamentą (EEB) Nr. 1408/71 dėl socialinės apsaugos sistemų taikymo pagal darbo sutartį dirbantiems asmenims, savarankiškai dirbantiems asmenims ir jų šeimos nariams, judantiems Bendrijoje

(Tekstas svarbus EEE)

EUROPOS PARLAMENTAS IR EUROPOS SĄJUNGOS TARYBA,

atsižvelgdami į Europos bendrijos steigimo sutartį, ypač į jos 42 ir 308 straipsnius,

atsižvelgdami į Komisijos pasiūlymą,

atsižvelgdami į Europos ekonomikos ir socialinių reikalų komiteto nuomonę (1),

laikydamiesi Sutarties 251 straipsnyje nustatytos tvarkos (2),

kadangi:

PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ REGLAMENTĄ:

1 straipsnis

Reglamento (EEB) Nr. 1408/71 I, II, IIa, III, IV ir VI priedai iš dalies keičiami taip, kaip numatyta šio reglamento priede.

2 straipsnis

Šis reglamentas įsigalioja trečią dieną nuo jo paskelbimo Europos Sąjungos oficialiajame leidinyje.

Priedo 1 punkto b papunktis ir 6 punkto b papunktis, susiję su Nyderlandais, taikomi nuo 2006 m. sausio 1 d., išskyrus EEB reglamento Nr. 1408/71 VI priedo skyriaus „Q. NYDERLANDAI“ 1 punkto f papunkčio šeštą įtrauką, kaip įterpta šio reglamento priedo 6 punkto b papunkčiu, kuri taikoma nuo datos, nurodytos šio straipsnio pirmoje pastraipoje.

Šis reglamentas yra privalomas visas ir tiesiogiai taikomas visose valstybėse narėse.

Priimta Strasbūre, 2006 m. gruodžio 18 d.

Europos Parlamento vardu

Pirmininkas

J. BORELL FONTELLES

Tarybos vardu

Pirmininkas

J.-E. ENESTAM

----

(1)  2006 m. gruodžio 13 d. nuomonė (dar nepaskelbta Oficialiajame leidinyje).

(2)  2006 m. lapkričio 14 d. Europos Parlamento nuomonė (dar nepaskelbta Oficialiajame leidinyje) ir 2006 m. gruodžio 18 d. Tarybos sprendimas.

----

PRIEDAS

Reglamento (EEB) Nr. 1408/71 priedai iš dalies keičiami taip:

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Chisholm BARTSH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-1470.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1993.

The appellant’s petition for rehearing is granted in part. We adhere to our prior opinion in all respects except on the issue of the amount of restitution. Since the record is not clear on how much restitution was made to the government (in money or assets) before the restitution order was entered, the matter is remanded for the limited purpose of determining the amount of restitution paid, which should then be credited towards the restitution obligation.
From: Hustvedt.Ken@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Hustvedt.Ken@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 5:16 PM 

To: jpeterson@environmentalintegrity.org; escheaffer@environmentalintegrity.org 

Cc: Coburn, Jeff B.; Parrish, Kristin; Lucas.Bob@epamail.epa.gov; Shine.Brenda@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: Fw: NOx turndown information 

here are the data that we have. one is our memo and the other is included in industry comments. 

glad we were finally able to get together 

take care, kc hustvedt 

----- Forwarded by Ken Hustvedt/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/10/2009 05:09 PM ----- 

From: Brenda Shine/RTP/USEPA/US 

To: Ken Hustvedt/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob Lucas/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 07/10/2009 04:26 PM 

Subject: NOx turndown information 

Here are 2 relevant items already in the Ja docket . The Marathon data is most applicable. 

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011-0290 NOx process heater data memo.pdf) 

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011-0256 marathon data.pdf) 
Note: The files attached to this email are located in the Refinery NSPS docket. 

The Docket ID Nos. are EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011-0256 and 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011-0290.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 5 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL R. BRUCE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM PERRILL, Warden, FCIEnglewood, Federal Bureau of

Prisons; ANGELA SHENK, Inmate

Records Mgr; HARRY SINGLETARY, Secretary, Florida Dept. of

Corrections; D. DUFER; DON

HUNTER; TRANSCOR AMERICA

INC., a Tennessee Corporation,

Extradition Agent,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-1118

(D.C. No. 96-S-1441)

(Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
2

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Daniel R. Bruce appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his

civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record, the relevant authorities, and

plaintiff’s arguments on appeal, and we are persuaded that the district court did

not err in dismissing the case.

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court substantially for the

reasons stated in the court’s Order of Dismissal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                   MECHANICAL DYNAMICS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
              FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001, 2000 AND 1999

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

in thousands, except share and per share data                               2001           2000            1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------
<S>                                                                     <C>            <C>            <C>

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:
   Net income......................................................     $       2,540  $       2,168  $       1,095
                                                                        =============  =============  =============

   Weighted average common shares outstanding......................         6,083,311      6,225,970      6,254,308
                                                                        =============  =============  =============

   Basic net income per common share...............................     $        0.42  $        0.35  $        0.18
                                                                        =============  =============  =============

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:
   Net income......................................................     $       2,540  $       2,168  $       1,095
                                                                        =============  =============  =============

   Weighted average common shares outstanding......................         6,083,311      6,225,970      6,254,308
   Effect of stock options and warrants............................           230,551          3,780             68
                                                                        -------------  -------------  -------------
     Weighted average common and common equivalent shares
       outstanding ................................................         6,313,862      6,229,750      6,254,376
                                                                        =============  =============  =============

   Diluted net income per common share.............................     $        0.40  $        0.35  $        0.18
                                                                        =============  =============  =============

</TABLE>
* 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. 00-50648

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSÉ LUIS MUNOZ-LARA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-00-CR-79-1

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

April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

José Luis Munoz-Lara appeals his conviction and 60-month

sentence for being found in the United States after deportation

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Munoz-Lara argues that the

district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the

indictment because his prior deportation did not meet the basic

standards of due process. Munoz-Lara acknowledges that the due

process issue is foreclosed by United States v. BenitezVillafuerte, 186 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S.
No. 00-50648

-2-

1097 (2000). He seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review.

He also contends that the felony conviction that resulted in

his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is an element

of the offense that must have been charged in the indictment. 

Munoz-Lara acknowledges that this argument also is foreclosed by

the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he again seeks to preserve the

issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not

overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 120 S. Ct. at 2362;

United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000),

petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Jan. 26, 2001)(No. 00-8299). 

As Munoz-Lara concedes, his arguments are foreclosed. His

conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7424
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY JOSEPH DE ANTONI, a/k/a Tony Dean, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-89-462-HAR, CA-95-2181-HAR) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Joseph De Antoni, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to correct and/or modify his sentence. We have reviewed therecord and find no reversible error. Appellant alleged that imposition of his sentence without parole under 21 U.S.C. § 848 (1988) was illegal. The motion was properly denied because imposition of the sentence without parole is mandatory under 21 U.S.C. § 848(c) (1988). In addition, Appellant alleged that his sentence should be vacated because the Government made a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion to reduce Appellant's sentence from eleven to ten years without the presence of Appellant in court. No error was committed when the district court granted the motion for reduction of sentence in accordance with former Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) because Appellant made the motion himself without opposition from the Government. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5122 

To amend the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 to provide mandatory 

funding for grants to upgrade agricultural and food sciences facilities 

at 1890 land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2018 

Mr. LAWSON of Florida (for himself, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Mr. BISHOP of 

Georgia, Ms. NORTON, Mr. HASTINGS, Ms. LEE, and Ms. BASS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 to provide 

mandatory funding for grants to upgrade agricultural 

and food sciences facilities at 1890 land-grant colleges, 

including Tuskegee University. 

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 ‘‘HBCU Parity Act of 

5 2018’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5122 IH

1 SEC. 2. GRANTS TO UPGRADE AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD 

2 SCIENCES FACILITIES AT 1890 LAND-GRANT 

3 COLLEGES, INCLUDING TUSKEGEE UNIVER4 SITY. 

5 Section 1447(b) of the Food and Agriculture Act of 

6 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222b(b)) is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(b) FUNDING.— 

8 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

9 There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

10 this section $50,000,000, to remain available until 

11 expended, for fiscal year 2018 and each fiscal year 

12 thereafter. 

13 ‘‘(2) MANDATORY FUNDING.—Of the funds of 

14 the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary of 

15 Agriculture shall use to carry out this section 

16 $50,000,000, to remain available until expended, for 

17 fiscal year 2018 and each fiscal year thereafter.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

RUBIO GUALBERTO TZIU-UC, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-30040 

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00100-HZ-12

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Rubio Gualberto Tziu-Uc appeals pro se from the district court’s order 

granting in part and denying in part his motion for return of property under Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and we affirm.

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

DEC 4 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-30040

Tziu-Uc contends that the district court erroneously denied his request for 

the return of $6,500 in cash with interest. “We review the denial of a motion for 

return of property de novo,” and “[w]e review the district court’s factual findings 

for clear error.” United States v. Harrell, 530 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008). 

The district court’s finding that the government did not possess the cash in 

question is not clearly erroneous, because cash was not listed on the search warrant 

return form and Tziu-Uc failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the 

government possessed the cash. Accordingly, the district court did not err in 

denying the motion for return of the cash with interest.

Tziu-Uc also requests an order for the production of the receipt from the 

search, along with the discovery file from his related criminal case. He did not 

raise this request before the district court, and he has not shown any valid reason to 

allow him to raise it for the first time on appeal. See United States v. FloresPayon, 942 F.2d 556, 558 (9th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.
U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Dear Mr. Sgalitzer: 

Assostant Secretary 

JUN 18 2014 

1200 New Jersey Ave .• S E 

Washongton. DC 20590 

Thank you for your e-mail to Secretary Foxx regarding the application of Norwegian Air 

International Limited (NAI) for authority to conduct U.S. services. I am responding on behalf of 

the Secretary. 

Given that a number of interested parties have filed responsive pleadings to NAI's application 

and this matter is currently pending before the Department, I am sure you understand that I 

cannot comment on the merits ofNAI's application. I assure you, however, that we will give full 

and careful consideration to all of the pleadings filed on the record before we reach a 

determination in this matter. 

As is our standard practice, I am placing a copy of your e-mail and my response in Docket DOTOST-2013-0204, as a contact outside the record ofthis case. You may track the progress ofthis 

case and view the publicly available documents filed in the docket by accessing the Federal 

Docket Management System at www.regulations.gov and searching for Docket 

DOT -OST -20 13-0204. 

I hope this information is helpful. 

510-140612-001 

Sincerely yours, 

Assistant Secretary for 

Aviation and International Affairs 
Valaitis, Ada (osn 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Secretary Foxx, 

Nick Sgalitzer <sgalitzern@gmail.com> 

Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:13 AM 

Anthony Foxx (OSD 

Please Deny Norwegian International Airlines 

Regarding the DOT making a mistake of epic and irreversible proportions by approving Norwegian International Airlines 

foreign air carrier permit application. The sham airline is skirting several labor & safety rules and offers consumers a 

small benifit of perhaps lower Trans Atlantic airfare. The negative aspects are too numerous to mention. The most 

devastating of which include the continued threat to our Airlines, labor law violations & safety. Our airlines are a huge 

part of our economy and represent millions of good jobs in this country. Not supporting the sham of Norwegian 

International Airlines is what's best for our economy, safety & jobs! 

Respectfully, 

Nicholas Sgalitzer 

1 

s 10-140612-001 

•
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of 
our report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed 
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (registration nos. 33-73510 and 33-77464).



                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Chicago, Illinois
May 14, 1998




                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation  by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-73510 and 33-77464) of Successories, Inc. 
of our report dated April 26, 1996 except as to a) the pro forma amounts for 
the period May 1, 1995 through February 3, 1996 presented in Note 11, the 
date of which is April 18, 1997 and b) the basic and diluted earnings per 
share amounts for the period May 1, 1995 through February 3, 1996 presented 
in the consolidated statements of operations and in Notes 11 and 14, the 
date of which is April 24, 1998, appearing on page F-3 of this Annual Report 
on Form 10-K.



                          PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Chicago, Illinois
May 14, 1998
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
    Date: May 15, 2008
    /s/ Gary L. DreherGary L. DreherPresident and Chief Executive Officer
AMDL, Inc.




o

o

o




Exhibit 10(a)


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 


We
consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 202 to Registration Statement No.33-26305 on
Form N-1A of our report dated November 23, 2011, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights of
BlackRock China Fund, a series of BlackRock Funds, appearing in the Annual Report on Form N-CSR of BlackRock Funds for the
period April 29, 2011 (commencement of operations) through September 30, 2011, and to the references to us under the
headings “Financial Highlights” in the Prospectus and “Financial Statements” in the Statement of
Additional Information, which are part of such Registration Statement. 


	 
	/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
	 
	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 January 25, 2012
##### 



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
  
    
    the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and
    
    the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 Dated: March 17, 2008/s/ Donald M. EarhartDonald M. EarhartChief Executive Officer/s/ James R. TalevichJames R. TalevichChief Financial Officer
 Note:
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
I-Flow Corporation and will be retained by I-Flow Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.