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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1134 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1134

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENTS
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                            April 12 (legislative day, April 11), 1994.
      Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
1134) entitled ``An Act to provide for the transfer of certain public 
lands located in Clear Creek County, Colorado, to the United States 
Forest Service, the State of Colorado, and certain local governments in 
the State of Colorado, and for other purposes'' do pass with the 
following

                              AMENDMENTS:

 (1)Page 2, line 22, strike out [(1)] and insert: (1) The boundaries of 
the Arapaho National Forest are hereby modified as shown on the map 
referred to in section 2.

 (2)Page 6, lines 16 and 17, strike out [section 202] and insert: 
section 2

 (3)Page 8, line 21, strike out all after ``(c)).'' down to and 
including ``Act,'' in line 24 and insert: Any lands so transferred 
shall be held by the recipient thereof under the same terms and 
conditions as if transferred by the United States under such Act,

 (4)Page 9, line 15, strike out [Mining] and insert: Mineral

 (5)Page 10, strike out all after line 6 over to and including line 5 
on page 11 and insert:
    (b) Limitation on Patent Issuance.--Subject to valid existing 
rights, no patent shall be issued after the date of enactment of this 
Act for any mining or mill site claim located under the general mining 
laws within the public lands referred to in sections 4 and 5.

 (6)Page 11, line 10, strike out [title] and insert: Act

 (7)Page 11, line 17, strike out [title] and insert: Act

 (8)Page 11, line 19, strike out [title] and insert: Act

 (9)Page 11, line 22, strike out [enactment of this Act] and insert: 
their transfer to the ownership of another party

 (10)Page 11, strike out all after line 22, over to and including line 
4 on page 12.

 (11)Page 12, line 5, strike out [(d)] and insert: (c)

            Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to provide for the 
        transfer of certain public lands located in Clear Creek County, 
        Colorado, to the Forest Service, the State of Colorado, and 
        certain local governments in the State of Colorado, and for 
        other purposes.''.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MARCF]I, MALAC}IOWSKI.

tD # 15287-052,

Pelitioner,

NIIN RIVI]RS.

Respondent. Civil Action No. 3:22-CV- l 156-C-BT

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ofthe United

Statcs Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Petitioner's Petitions under'

28 U.S.C. 

"s 

2241 should be DISMISSED. Petitioner filed his objections on May l5 2023. Said

objections are OVERRULED

The Court conducts ade not,o review of'those portions ofthe Magistrate Judge's report or

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C

$ 636(bX I )(C). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the

subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or

contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson,864 F.2d 1219,1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

The Court has conducted an independent review ofthe Magistate Judge's findings and

conclusions and finds no error. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Case 3:22-cv-01156-C-BT Document 17 Filed 05/23/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 314
For the reasons stated therein, Petioner's Petition in the above-styled and -numbered civil

actior.r is DISMISSED.

Pursuant to Rule 22 ofthe Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. $ 2253(c),

this Court flnds that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 'l'hc Courl adopts and incorporates

by reference the Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation in support ol

its linding that Petitioner has failed to show that a reasonable jurist would find: (1) this Court's

"assessment ofthe constitutional claims debatable or wrong," or (2) "it debatable whether the

pclilion statcs a valid claim olthe denial of a constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this

Courtl was correct in its procedural ruling." S/acft v. McDaniel,529 U.S. 473,484 (2000).

SO OIiI)I]I{ED

,/

Dated this 23 day ofMay, 2023.

S INGS

R ITED STATE IS CT JUDGE

)

71

C

1

(

4-r,''/" iL4

(

Case 3:22-cv-01156-C-BT Document 17 Filed 05/23/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 315
1

The Annuity Puzzle

Prof. Elizabeth F. Brown

Georgia State University
Percentage of U.S. Private Sector Workers 

with Pension Plans, 1990-2014

2

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1990-911991-921992-931993-941994-951996-97

19992000200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014

Defined Benefit Defined Contribution Any Retirement Plans
The Annuity Puzzle

Defined Benefit Plan

 Median Income in 

Virginia: About $75,000

 Works for the same 

employer for 20 years.

 Annual pension equals 

about $30,000 ($75,000 x 

2% x 20)

 Monthly income: $2500

Defined Contribution Plan

 Median Income in 

Virginia: About $75,000

 Recommended Savings: 

$600,000 (Income x 8)

 If withdraws 4% annually, 

annual income about 

$24,000

 Monthly income: $2000

 Use $500,000 to buy a 

single life annuity, est. 

monthly payment: $2500

3
Reasons People Might Not

Purchase an Annuity:

1. Failed to save sufficient funds to buy one

2. Motivated to leave a bequest to their heirs

3. Need to deal with health shocks – illiquid 

4. Concerns about whether an annuity is a 

good investment 

5. Concerns about the financial viability of the 

firm offering the annuity

6. Overestimating their ability to manage their 

funds in retirement

4
Reasons People Might Not

Purchase an Annuity (cont.):

7. Too much choice which causes inertia:

 Fixed annuities

 Variable annuities

 Equity-indexed annuities

 Guaranteed annuity contracts

 Two-tiered annuities

 Annuities with death benefit options

 Deferred vs. immediate annuities

 Qualified vs. non-qualified annuities

5
Growing Alternatives or 

Substitutes for Annuities:

1. Reverse Mortgages

2. Managed payout funds or income 

replacement funds offered by mutual 

fund companies

6
Agenda -- August 2007 Refunding 

Treasury Dealer Meetings July 26, 2007 

Dealer ___________________ 

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to 12:00 p.m. on 

Wednesday, July 25 to Debt.Management@do.treas.gov and Matthew.Rutherford@ny.frb.org. 

Even if you are not scheduled to meet with Treasury officials this quarter, your responses are still 

appreciated. 

I. Borrowing Estimates Central 

Estimate 

Range that would not 

surprise you 

 Low/High 

 July-September / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 October-December / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 

II. Budget Deficit Estimates 

 FY 2007 / 

 FY 2008 / 

 

III. Quarterly Note and Bond Issuance 

 10-year note / 

 30-year bond / 

 10-year note reopening / 

 2-year note Aug/Sep/Oct / 

 5-year note Aug/Sep/Oct / / / / - / / 

 10-year TIPS reopening / / / / - / / 

 5-year TIPS reopening / 

(Please provide your estimates in the format provided above with central estimates followed by low/high estimates for each issue) 

Discussion Topics 

1. Given the latest Mid-Session Review budget outlook, do you believe the current financing 

schedule is well-suited to meet Treasury’s financing needs going forward? If not, please 

elaborate on changes that you believe Treasury should consider.

2. Treasury is considering lowering the minimum denomination on marketable securities from 

$1000 to $100. Treasury believes that such a change will broaden the investor base for Treasury 

securities, allow access for small investors to US Treasury markets, and increase overall 

efficiency. We are interested in your views on this potential change. 
3. Treasury would like your views regarding the effects of recent developments in the subprime 

mortgage market and related credit markets. Specifically, we are interested in your perspective 

on their influence on market liquidity, credit terms, compensation for risk, valuation 

methodologies and margin terms, origination volumes, the U.S. Treasury market and the broader 

economy.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1010 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1010

 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire parcels of land 
commonly known as Fisherman's Cove and Gull Island for inclusion in the 
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in Monmouth County and Ocean 
                          County, New Jersey.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 1993

   Mr. Smith of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire parcels of land 
commonly known as Fisherman's Cove and Gull Island for inclusion in the 
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in Monmouth County and Ocean 
                          County, New Jersey.

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

SECTION 1. ACQUISITION OF LAND.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and subject to 
the availability of appropriations, may acquire for inclusion in the 
Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge the land described in 
subsection (b), or such portion of that land as the Secretary considers 
appropriate.
    (b) Land Described.--The lands referred to in subsection (a) are 
the parcel in Monmouth County, New Jersey, commonly known as 
Fisherman's Cove, consisting of land bordered by Brielle Road, Third 
Avenue, and the Manasquan River and depicted on the Borough of 
Manasquan Tax Map on file with the Borough Engineer, Borough of 
Manasquan, Monmouth County, New Jersey, and the parcel in Ocean County, 
New Jersey commonly known as Gull Island, consisting of land located in 
the Manasquan River.
    (c) Management of Acquired Land.--Land acquired by the Secretary of 
the Interior under this section shall be managed as part of the Edwin 
B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with the purposes 
for which that refuge was established.

                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 23-0471 

BRENDA ZASTOUPIL 

PETITIONER & APPELLANT 

V. 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & NDUSTRY, 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS 

BOARD, AND RYAN RESTAURANT 

CORPORATION 

RESPONDANTS & APPELLEE'S 

GRANT OF MOTION TO 

PROCEED WITHOUT 

PAYMENT OF FILING FEE 

Motion to proceed without payment of the filing fee in this matter is 

GRANTED. 

DATED August 25, 2023. 

Clerk of the Supreme Court 

08/25/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0471
# LCDR Steigelman published in the Interagency Journal

/ Published Dec. 8, 2015

LCDR TIM Steigelman, USNR, a graduate of AJPME Class 14-4 published *Leading the Interagency to Shape U.S. China Relations* in the Interagency Journal, Vol 6, Issue 4, Fall 2015.

The article can be found at the link below.

http://thesimonscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/IAJ-6-4-Fall-2015-40-47.pdf
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7852

LEON STEVENSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden of Perry Correctional

Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney

General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District

Judge. (CA-99-2779-2-12)

Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: August 13, 2004

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leon Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

Stevenson’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Contrary

to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, however, the district

court never entered its judgment in a separate document. As a

result, the time limit for noting an appeal never began to run.

See Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 384-85 (1978). We

accordingly deem the appeal timely.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Leon Stevenson seeks to appeal* the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

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

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court also are debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Stevenson has not made the requisite

showing. 

First, Stevenson’s argument that his state court

convictions violate double jeopardy has been previously rejected by

this court, Stevenson v. Johnson, No. 01-7572 (4th Cir. Mar. 27,

2003) (unpublished) (reversing district court’s grant of habeas
- 3 -

petition), and that ruling is now the law of the case.

Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 815-16

(1988); United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

Second, Stevenson’s claim that he received ineffective assistance

of counsel in his prior appeal to this court fails as he is not

entitled to such representation in a collateral adjudication.

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

also deny Stevenson’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for

appointment of counsel and 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. 

DISMISSED
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SureWest Communications (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies
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) and
          Section 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.

Date:  March 10, 2005
                             By:      /s/ BRIAN H. STROM
                                     -----------------------------------------
                                         Brian H. Strom,
                                       President and Chief
                                        Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SureWest Communications and will be retained by SureWest
Communications and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0583

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

TAYLOR JAY DAMM,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 12, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 4 2024

06/04/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0583
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MICHAEI- ANTHONY GOODLOE, JR.,

Plaintiff.

DAI,LAS COUNTY COURTS.

Defendants. CiviI Action No. 3:22-CV-2068-C-BK

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ofthe United

States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that this civil action should be dismissed with

prejudice as frivolous. Plaintiffhas failed to file objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation and the time to do so has now expired.

The Court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for clear error

and finds none. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions ofthe Court. For the reasons stated

therein, the Court ORDERS that this civil action be DISMISSED with prejudice.

Furthermore, Plaintiff is BARRED from filing future actions informa pauperri in this or

any other federal court, without first obtaining leave ofcourt to do so, and any case filed,

removed, or transferred without the applicable filing fee, in which he is a plaintiff, should not be

reviewed bythe Court. /

SO ORDERED tfris // aay of O ctober,202

"47"7-7

CU GS

R LIN D STATES DI CT JUDGE

IN THE LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

Case 3:22-cv-02068-C-BK Document 6 Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 16
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER00-3583-000]

On October 5, 2000, by delegated authority, a deficiency letter in the instant proceeding determined that Arizona Independent Scheduling Administrator Association's filing in the instant proceeding was deficient, pending submission by Arizona Public Service (APS) and Tucson Electric Power Company (Tucson) of modifications in their own open access transmission tariffs. APS made such a filing, in Docket No. ER01-173-000, on October 20, 2000. Tucson filed modifications to its tariff, as revised, in Docket No. ER01-208-000, on October 25, 2000. As a consequence, the date for the submission of comments, protests, and interventions in Docket No. ER00-3583-000 will be November 15, 2000. The comment dates for Docket Nos. ER01-173-000 and ER01-208-000 remain November 8, 2000 and November 15, 2000, respectively.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filings should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 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 should be filed on or before the above-mentioned dates. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine 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 these filings are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. These filings may also 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. 00-29207  Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M