alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Frequently Asked Questions on the Government Securities Investment Fund

March 17, 2015

1. What is the Government Securities Investment Fund?

The G Fund is a money market defined-contribution retirement fund for Federal 

employees.

2. How does the debt ceiling affect the G Fund?

The G Fund is invested in special-issue Treasury securities, which count against the debt 

limit. The entire balance matures daily and is ordinarily reinvested. In 1987, Congress 

granted Treasury the statutory authority to suspend reinvestment of all or part of the 

balance of the G Fund when the Secretary determines that the Fund cannot be fully 

invested without exceeding the debt limit.

3. How much headroom will this Treasury action involving the G Fund provide?

As of March 16, $194 billion.

4. What impact will this action have on Federal employees and their retirement 

benefits?

By law, the G Fund will be made whole once the debt limit is increased. Federal retirees 

and employees will be unaffected by this action.

5. Has Treasury ever suspended reinvestment of all or part of the G Fund before?

Yes, in the past 20 years, Treasury used this extraordinary measure in 1995-96, 2002, 

2003, 2004, 2006, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 700067

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### ADAM P. CALE Private First Class (E

- 2 ), U

. S

. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ A ppeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Major M ichael D. Zimmerman
, USMC

. Convening Authority: C ommanding Officer, Headquarters and Support Battalion, Marine Corps Installations West

- Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton , CA. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Major Edward C. Mitchell, USMC

. For Appellant : Lieutenant Commander Ryan C. Mattina, JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 28 M arch 2017

_________________________ Befor e C AMPBELL , H UTCHISON , and G ROHARING , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66( c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
Aggregated Perspectives on Treasury Auction Sizes, October 16, 2015

Tranche

MEAN STD MEAN STD MEAN STD

4-week 20 4.5 51 3.5 14 7.3

13-week 20 2.6 38 3.8 9 3.9

26-week 19 2.1 37 3.1 9 3.8

52-week 18 2.5 30 2.2 7 3.8

2-year 21 1.3 41 5.2 4 1.5

3-year 20 1.1 37 5.8 4 1.4

5-year 28 1.9 41 2.4 3 1.4

7-year 23 2.0 35 0.8 3 1.1

10-year 18 2.0 29 1.6 3 0.9

30-year 11 1.4 19 1.3 2 0.6

5-year 13 1.3 20 1.5 3 1.6

10-year 10 1.2 18 1.4 2 1.3

30-year 6 0.5 11 1.1 2 1.2

2-year 10 1.2 18 1.8 4 2.3

The Treasury Department’s Office of Debt Management (ODM) surveyed all 22 primary dealers on October 16, 2015 on their firms’ 

perspectives on current Treasury auction sizes. The results presented below are “trimmed mean” and “trimmed standard deviation”. 

That is, the high and low values of all 22 responses for any maturity tranche are deleted before computing the average and standard 

deviation.

TIPS

FRN

Minimum Auction Size needed to 

maintain Benchmark Liquidity ($bil)

Maximum Auction Size that could be 

issued without causing significant 

yield deviations from fair value ($bil)

Maximum change (+/-) per quarter in 

auction size ($bil)

Bills

Coupons
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth 

No. 02-21-00202-CR

DOMINIQUE A. SMITH, Appellant

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

On Appeal from County Criminal 

Court No. 5

of Tarrant County (1609087) 

July 28, 2022 

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel 

 Justice Dabney Bassel
# Official Journal L 411/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 411 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6419 November 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 411

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6419 November 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2023 of 12 November 2021 approving Union amendment to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication (‘Soave’ (PDO)) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2024 of 18 November 2021 amending Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 laying down special control measures for African swine fever (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2021/2025 of 15 November 2021 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Council of Members of the International Olive Council, as regards a trade standard applying to olive oils and olive-pomace oils | 40 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2023 of 12 November 2021 approving Union amendment to the specification for a Protected Designation of Origin or a Protected Geographical Indication (‘Soave’ (PDO))

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2024 of 18 November 2021 amending Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 laying down special control measures for African swine fever (
  1
  )

1

3

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (EU) 2021/2025 of 15 November 2021 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Council of Members of the International Olive Council, as regards a trade standard applying to olive oils and olive-pomace oils

40

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
In the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

Dallas Division 

United States of America, § 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

v. § Case No. 3:22-CR-378-N 

§ 

Raynaldo Rivera Ortiz, Jr § 

Defendant. § 

§ 

Notice of Erroneous Citation 

 Page 2, Section 3, of the defendant’s objections to the Government’s Proposed 

Instructions inadvertently cited a portion of Justice Thomas’s dissent in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 

U.S. 1 (2005), without noting that it came from the dissent. I apologize for the error. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JASON D. HAWKINS 

Federal Public Defender 

Northern District of Texas 

/s/ Kevin Joel Page 

KEVIN JOEL PAGE 

Assistant Federal Public Defender 

Northern District of Texas 

Texas Bar No. 24042691 

525 Griffin Street, Suite 629 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Phone 214-767-2746 

joel_page@fd.org

Case 3:22-cr-00378-N Document 159 Filed 04/09/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1434
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 9, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing document using 

the Court’s CM/ECF system, thereby providing service on attorneys of record. 

/s/ Kevin Joel Page 

KEVIN JOEL PAGE 

Case 3:22-cr-00378-N Document 159 Filed 04/09/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1435
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 190

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 23, 1993

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the sine die adjournment of the first session

of the One Hundred Third Congress.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Monday, November 22, 1993, or the legislative

4 day of Tuesday, November 23, 1993, pursuant to a motion

5 by the majority leader, or his designee, in accordance with

6 this resolution, it stand adjourned sine die, and that when

7 the Senate adjourns on any day beginning on Monday, No8 vember 22, 1993 through 11:55 a.m. on Monday, January

9 3, 1994, pursuant to a motion made by the majority lead10 er, or his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it

11 stand adjourned sine die or until noon on the second day

12 after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to sec13 tion 2 of this resolution: Provided, That the Senate may
2

HCON 190 RDS

1 recess or adjourn for any period in excess of three days

2 pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader, or his

3 designee, for the duration of the first session of the One

4 Hundred Third Congress, subject to section 2 of this reso5 lution.

6 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the majority

7 leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

8 the minority leader of the House and the minority leader

9 of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and

10 Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opin11 ion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives November 23

(legislative day, November 22), 1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
Exhibit
31



CERTIFICATIONS



I,
Ronald Andrews, certify that:



1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of OncoCyte Corporation;



2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;



Date:
April 27, 2020



|/s/
    Ronald Andrews      | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Ronald
    Andrews          | 
|Chief
    Executive Officer | 













Exhibit
31



CERTIFICATIONS



I,
Mitchell Levine, certify that:



1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of OncoCyte Corporation;



2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;



Date:
April 27, 2020



|/s/
    Mitchell Levine     | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Mitchell
    Levine         | 
|Chief
    Financial Officer |
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 224 (Monday, November 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29594]



[[Page 69757]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-365-000]


Kentucky Utilities Company; Notice of Filing

November 13, 2000.

    Take notice that on November 3, 2000, AmerenCIPS tendered for 
filing a Notice of Cancellation stating that effective as of June 12, 
2000, Rate Schedule FERC No. 97, dated June 1, 1988, (Docket No. ER 88-
439) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Central 
Illinois Public Service Company is to be canceled.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests must be filed on or before November 24, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the 
Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 
for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29594 Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

US ONCOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC. AND US ONCOLOGY, INC.

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Dale Ross, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|/s/ R. Dale Ross                                                           
|R. Dale Ross                                                               
|Chief Executive Officer of US
Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc.

November 9, 2007
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CARMONA-ROJAS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-72741 

Agency No. A098-761-930 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Juan Carmona-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

 

* 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

OCT 31 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-72741 

the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 

2008). We deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Carmona-Rojas does not challenge the agency’s 

determination that he failed to establish past persecution. See Corro-Barragan v. 

Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening 

brief resulted in waiver). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination 

that Carmona-Rojas has not established that it is more likely than not he will be 

persecuted in Mexico on account of his family membership. See Ayala v. Holder, 

640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social 

group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be 

on account of his membership in such group”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 

1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by 

criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members has no nexus to 

a protected ground”). We reject Carmona-Rojas’s contention that the BIA failed to 

properly analyze his withholding of removal claim in light of recent case law. 

Thus, we deny the petition for review as to his withholding of removal claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 04679

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

04679\04679_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 04679\04679_Email Correspondence.pdf Plant submitted survey file

x 04679\04679_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04679\04679_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04679\04679_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04679\04679_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04679\04679_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

04679\Certification Statement Plant ID 04679.pdf Plant certification statement

04679\Supplemental Documents\04679_CH_A5-2 Maps.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

X 04679\Supplemental Documents\04679_CH_A5-3_Flow diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

04679\Supplemental Documents\04679_CH_C2-31 Diagram.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

X 04679\Supplemental Documents\04679_CH_D3-1 Diagrams.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04679\4679_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04679\04679_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-21146

JOSE COLLEGA REYES,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-95-CV-4828)

January 8, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Collega Reyes appeals an adverse summary judgment on his petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for habeas relief from his state court conviction and

sentence for murder. Having considered the record and briefs, substantially for the

reasons and authorities assigned by the district court in its Summary Judgment

Order signed December 2, 1996 and entered December 3, 1996, we AFFIRM.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MYRA BROWN AND ALEXANDER

TAYLOR,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 4:22-cv-908-P

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

(ECF No. 3). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, “[b]efore or after 

beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the 

court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the 

hearing.” FED. R. CIV. P. 65. 

Having held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction and reviewed the related briefing, the Court intends to 

consolidate as it appears that the Parties have presented their case and 

no evidence of significance would be forthcoming at trial. The Court 

ORDERS the Parties to file written objections to the Court advancing 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction to a determination on the 

merits by November 4, 2022.

SO ORDERED on this 2nd day of November 2022.

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00908-P Document 33 Filed 11/02/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 420
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID 1
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID 2
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID 3
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID 4
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID 5
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID 6
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID 7
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID 8
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID 9
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID 10
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID 11
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID 12
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID 13
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID 14
Case 3:22-cr-00352-K Document 1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID 15
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 222 (Thursday, November 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29349]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2471-005--Michigan]


Wisconsin Electric Power Company; Notice of Availability of 
Environmental Assessment

November 9, 2000.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application to surrender license 
for the Sturgeon Plant Project located on the Sturgeon River, a 
tributary of the Menominee River, in Dickinson County, Michigan, and 
has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. In the 
EA, the Commission staff has analyzed the potential environmental 
effects of the proposed action and has concluded that accepting 
surrender of the license, with appropriate environmental measures, 
would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the EA are available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm. Please call (202) 208-2222 for 
assistance.
    Any comments should be filed by December 1, 2000, and should be 
addressed to David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Please affix 
Project No. 2471-005 to all comments. Comments and protests may be 
filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
    For further information, please contact Patti Leppert at (202) 219-
2767.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29349 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M