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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4827 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4827

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain aluminum alloy foil.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2012

 Mr. Nunnelee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain aluminum alloy foil.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ALUMINUM ALLOY FOIL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Aluminum alloy      Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          foil, in coils,                                                   12/31/2015
                          of alloy 6011,
                          measuring either
                          0.006 mm or 0.008
                          mm in thickness
                          and 16 mm or 25
                          mm in width,
                          suitable for use
                          in the
                          manufacture of
                          window shades
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          7607.19.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5055 

To extend the suspension of duty on 3-Amino-4-methylbenzamide. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on 3-Amino-4- 

methylbenzamide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 3-AMINO-4-METHYLBENZAMIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.63 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 3-Amino-4-methylbenzamide) is amended by striking the 

7 date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

8 2015’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5055 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                                                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                           
|View History:                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                               
|No chart available.                                                                                            
|No chart available.                                                                                            
|                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                               
|Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5179 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on europium oxide. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on europium 

oxide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EUROPIUM OXIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.22 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 europium oxide) is amended by striking the date in the 

7 effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5179 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18

- 2244 Filed November 6, 2019

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF AMIT GUPTA AND MANIKA BANSAL Upon the Petition of AMIT GUPTA, Petitioner

- Appellant/Cross

- Appellee, And Concerning MANIKA BANSAL, Respondent

- Appellee/Cross

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Andrew Chappell , Judge.

Former spouses appeal and cross

- appeal a decree of dissolution of marriage. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.

Amit Gupta, Los Angeles, California, pro se appellant. Manika Bansal, New York, New York, pro se appellee.

Considered by Bower, C .J. , Mullins, J. , and Scott, S.J. *

* Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2019).2

SCOTT , Senior Judge

. Former spouses appeal and cross

- appeal a decree of dissolution of marriage. The former husband, Amit Gupta, argues the court erred in not setting aside his premarital assets as separate property, not considering the tax consequences to each party in determining the property distribution, and not granting his reservation of tort claims. The former wife, Manika Bansal, argues the
court e rred in its division of the parties’ personal property as well as its valuation of specific assets, not reimbursing her with funds allegedly dissipated by Gupta, declining to award her spousal support, and declining to award her attorney fees. Both partie s request an award of appellate attorney fees. We have conducted a de novo review of this equitable proceeding. Iowa R. App. 6.907; In re Marriage of Larsen , 912 N.W.2d 444, 448 (Iowa 2018). While not bound by the district court’s factual findings and credibility assessments, Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g); In re Marriage of Fennelly , 737 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa 2007), we have accorded them “great weight,” as “the trial court is in a far better posi tion to weigh the credibility of witnesses than the appellate court.” Albert v. Conger , 886 N.W.2d 877, 880 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). We agree with the district court’s characterizations of the parties’ “scorched

earth” tactics in this litigation, which ha s been nothing short of “a race to the bottom.” Upon our de novo review and consideration of the issues presented, we are unable to say the district court’s rulings amount to a failure to do equity; we therefore do not disturb them. See I n re Marriage of McDermott , 827 N.W.2d 671, 676 (Iowa 2013). The issues presented herein involve only the application of well

settled rules of law, the evidence is sufficient to support the district court’s factual3

findings, disposition on appeal is controlled by prior p ublished appellate opinions, we approve the reasons for and conclusions in the district court’s written rulings, and a full opinion would not augment or clarify existing case law. We put this acrimonious matter to bed by affirming without further opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a) through (e). The parties’ requests for appellate attorney fees are denied. Costs on appeal shall be equally assessed between the parties. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000092088
<NAME> BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                              92
<SECURITIES>                                       219
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,789
<ALLOWANCES>                                        96
<INVENTORY>                                        339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,306
<PP&E>                                          42,998
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,420
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,068
<BONDS>                                          6,805
<COMMON>                                         7,413
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,461
<SALES>                                            149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,761
<CGS>                                              191
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,693
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    96
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,483
<INCOME-TAX>                                       944
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,583
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,734)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,195)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
3/5/2009 Page of

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Summary Page

Chemical ID: P080263 Reviewer: Cinalli

EAB DROP: Release information for this com pound does not m eet criteria for preparation of an exposure assessment in the Exposure Assessment Branch = s (EAB) Initial Review Exposure Report (this report).



### Revised by C. Cinalli on 3/4/09

Changes from Previous Exposure Repor t: The previous Engineering Report (P080263.en1.txt) for the PMN substance which do not appear in the new Engineering Re port (P080263.en2.txt). The new version constitutes an EAB Drop
<TABLE>

                                                                                                                   EXHIBIT 12
                       SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                               Dollars in Millions


<CAPTION>
                                          NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                            SEPTEMBER 30,                          YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                        -----------------------  -------------------------------------------------------------
                                             1998        1997        1997       1996         1995         1994         1993
                                        -----------------------  -------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>        <C>         <C>          <C>        <C>           <C>

Income Before Income Taxes,
   Extraordinary Loss and 
   Cumulative Effect of
   Accounting Changes                     $  1,917    $  1,588   $   1,888   $   2,168    $   1,688   $    1,586   $    1,424
     Add:Interest Expense                      276         254         343         327          340          358          385
         1/3 Rental Expense                     31          29          41          33           26           25           23
                                          ---------   ---------  ----------  ----------   ----------  -----------  -----------

     Adjusted Earnings                    $  2,224    $  1,871   $   2,272   $   2,528    $   2,054   $    1,969   $    1,832
                                          =========   =========  ==========  ==========   ==========  ===========  ===========

Total Interest Charges                    $    294    $    275   $     370   $     348    $     340   $      358   $      385
1/3 Rental Expense                              31          29          41          33           26           25           23
                                          ---------   ---------  ----------  ----------   ----------  -----------  -----------

     Adjusted Fixed Charges               $    325    $    304   $     411   $     381    $     366   $      383   $      408
                                          =========   =========  ==========  ==========   ==========  ===========  ===========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges            6.84        6.15        5.53        6.64         5.61         5.14         4.49

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6541

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER FRED GOAD, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:08-cr-00184-REP-1; 3:11-cv-00026-REP)

Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Fred Goad, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Everett 

James, Jr., Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; 

Michael Ronald Gill, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Fred Goad, Sr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2013) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Goad has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25459]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the Ad Hoc 
Subcommittee; Revised

    The ACRS Ad Hoc Subcommittee meeting scheduled for October 10-13, 
2000 has been extended to Saturday, October 14, 2000, Room T-2B3, 11545 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 8:30 a.m. until 12 Noon to discuss 
proposed comments and recommendations on the technical merits of the 
Differing Professional Opinion Issues associated with steam generator 
tube integrity. Notice of this meeting was previously published in the 
Federal Register on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 (65 FR 56945). All 
other items pertaining to this meeting remains the same as previously 
published.
    For further information contact either Mr. Sam Duraiswamy 
(telephone 301-415-7364) or Ms. Undine Shoop (telephone 301-415-8086) 
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT).

    Dated: September 28, 2000.
James E. Lyons,
Associate Director for Technical Support, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 00-25459 Filed 10-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

United States of America

vs.

Jose Isabel Garcia-Rodriguez

§

§

§

§

§

NO. 1:20-CR-88-LY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to the District Court pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). The District Court referred this case to the United States Magistrate 

Judge for the taking of the defendant’s felony guilty plea and for his allocution pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.

On March 9, 2020, the defendant and counsel appeared before the Magistrate Judge. The 

undersigned addressed the defendant personally in open court, informed him of the admonishments 

under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and determined that he understood 

those admonishments. The defendant pled guilty to one count of Illegal Re-entry into the United 

States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

The Magistrate Judge finds the following:

1. The defendant, with the advice of his attorney, consented to enter this guilty plea before 

the Magistrate Judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the District Judge;

2. The defendant fully understands the nature of the charge against him and possible 

penalties;

3. The defendant understands his constitutional and statutory rights, understands that his

constitutional and statutory rights can be waived, and understands the meaning and 

effect of the waiver of his constitutional and statutory rights;
4. The defendant’s plea was made freely and voluntarily;

5. The defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; and

6. There is a factual basis for this plea. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court accept the defendant’s guilty 

plea and, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, enter a Final Judgment of guilt 

against him.

WARNING

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections 

must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. 

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. 

United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written 

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained within this Report within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo 

review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations and, except on grounds 

of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of proposed factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted by the District Court to which no objections were filed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472-74 (1985); Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on March 10, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE