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

I 

I 

Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Ashley Tangonan <ash679@hawaii.edu> 

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:42 PM 

Faulk, Scott (OST); EAS (OST) 

EAS Kaulapapa 

Dear Department of Transportation, 

:; 

I am writing to support Mokulele Airline's 4-year bid to link Kalaupapa to Kahului, Honolulu, Kapalua, 

and Ho'olehua. Mokulele is the best candidate as they have lower fares, experienced friendly agents, 

frequent flights, multiple islands and ease of booking via Global Distribution System. It is important we 

have safe, stable and affordable service to Kalaupapa. I travel 2 x a week on mokulele airlines for 

bussiness,and there flight availability is what works. All the other islands depends on a reliable flight 

service. 

Please select Mokulele to serve Kalaupapa for 4 years 

Mahala, 

Pualani Tangonan 

1
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2022

- 2 5 52

_____________________________
M ICHAEL W ILLIS M ITCHELL II
, Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

. August 23, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , C.J., and R OWE and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Ross, Assistant Attorney General
, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
HomeSite Help

# NRC Site Search: News Releases

### Filter by Document Type

 All                   - All
                  - ADAMS - Headquarters
                  - ADAMS - Region I
                  - ADAMS - Region II
                  - ADAMS - Region III
                  - ADAMS - Region IV
                  - ADAMS - Other
                  - Main Site

### Sort Documents by

Sort by                  - Relevance
                  - Date

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, December 28, 2023

#### Related Information

                - News Releases

Section Navigation

#### Site Help

          - Search All Sites
          - Main Site
          - News Releases
          - Public Documents (ADAMS)
          - Agency Correspondence
          - Commission Documents
          - Commission Papers
          - Commission Speeches
          - Contracts
          - Enforcement
          - Event Reports
          - Facility Locator
          - FOIA
          - Generic Communications
          - Glossary
          - Images
          - Inspection Manual
          - Inspection Reports
          - NSTS Blog
          - NUREG-Series Publications
          - Reactor Oversight
          - Regulations (10 CFR)
          - Regulatory Guides

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan
# C_2004240EN.01000401.xml

| 28.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3483 — Voestalpine AG/Nedcon Groep N.V.)

(2004/C 240/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 August 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3483. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3483. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex)

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

657 

KA 09-01933 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES FIDA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (CHRISTINE M. COOK OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Onondaga County Court (William D.

Walsh, J.), entered September 2, 2009 pursuant to the 2004 Drug Law

Reform Act. The order denied defendant’s application to be

resentenced upon defendant’s 1989 conviction of criminal sale of a

controlled substance in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Onondaga

County Court for further proceedings. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his

application for resentencing under the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act

([DLRA-1] L 2004, ch 738, § 23). We agree with defendant that County

Court erred in determining that he was ineligible for resentencing

because he had previously been released on parole and was incarcerated

for a parole violation at the time of his application (see People v

Caban, 84 AD3d 828, 828). As the Court of Appeals has noted with

respect to the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act (see CPL 440.46), although

“many parole violators have shown by their conduct that they do not

deserve relief from their sentences[,] . . . courts can deny their

resentencing applications . . . if ‘substantial justice dictates that

the application should be denied’ ” (People v Paulin, 17 NY3d 238,

244, quoting L 2004, ch 738, § 23; see Caban, 84 AD3d 828). We

therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to County Court for

further proceedings on defendant’s application for resentencing

pursuant to DLRA-1. 

Entered: June 15, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 25, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00300-CR

LEVI MAYS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1526077

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Levi Mays timely appealed his conviction for aggravated assault. We abated the 

appeal so a hearing could be held regarding appellant’s counsel’s failure to file a brief and 

whether appellant desires to continue his appeal. At the hearing, appellant stated he did not 

want to continue the appeal. Appellant’s counsel filed a motion for voluntary dismissal, 

but we denied the motion because it was not signed by appellant as required by Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 42.2. The trial court has since made findings of fact that appellant 

expressed his intent to abandon his appeal. The findings of fact have been filed in a 

supplemental clerk’s record.
2

Appellant has not filed a motion to dismiss his appeal that complies with Rule 

42.2(a). However, based upon appellant’s testimony at the hearing and the trial court’s 

finding that appellant does not want to continue his appeal, we conclude that good cause 

exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Zimmerer. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
SUBJECT: APPEARANCE CONCERNING CARBON REGULATIONS

DATE: 29 JULY 2014 SOURCE MATERIALS (PRIMARY)

1) MARK JOHNSON, ELISSA LEVINE, AND JEFFREY KERN U S EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY 200 S W 35TH STREET, CORVALLIS OREGON 97333 2) NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER BIOSPHERIC SCIENCES RESEARCH GREENBELT, MARYLAND 20771 THANK YOU TO THE AGENCY FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. I WISH TO REQUEST LEAVE TO REVISE AND EXTEND MY REMARKS. MY COMMENTS ARE: HOW WEST VIRGINIA CAN LEAD THE NATION TO A SMALLER CARBON FOOTPRINT WHILE BENEFITING FROM SUCH PRACTICES I SPEAK ABOUT COAL, IMPORTANT IN OUR STATE, ADDRESSING COAL EXTRACTION, USES OF BY PRODUCTS, AND FUNDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE CARBON REGULATIONS. COAL MUST BE DIRECTED TO ITS HIGHEST, BEST, AND MOST EFFICIENT USES. GENERATING STEAM AND HEAT DO NOT MEET THESE THREE CRITERIA. WE MUST ELIMINATE SURFACE EXTRACTION OF COAL, CALLED MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL, AND EMPLOY SUBSURFACE EXTRACTION OF COAL, SAFEGUARDING THE WELL BEING OF MINERS AND CONTAINING POLLUTANTS FROM THESE OPERATIONS. PREPARE COAL AT EXTRACTION SITES, READY FOR CONTRACTED END USER(S), AND SHIPPED TO END USER(S), AND ACCOMPLISHED BY THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS, INTERNATIONAL. COAL PRESENTS CERTAIN CHALLENGES. BY PRODUCTS OF COAL INCLUDE CARBON DIOXIDE, CARBON MONOXIDE, NITROGEN AND SULFUR BYPRODUCTS, AND HEAVY METAL SALTS. ALL ARE VALUABLE COMMODITIES AND HAVE INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS. THESE BY PRODUCTS SHOULD BE ORIENTED TO HIGHEST AND BEST USES. IN THE STUDIES ABOVE MENTIONED, AND CONFIRMED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF SOIL SCIENCES, AN ACRE OF FARMLAND SEQUESTERS 120,000 POUNDS (60 TONS) OF NATURAL CARBON. THREE BILLIONS ACRES OF CROPLAND IN AMERICA CAN SEQUESTER)S0 BILLIONS TONS OF CARBON, ANNUALLY. OTHER LANDS, SUCH AS HIGHWAY MEDIANS, ETC. SEQUESTER MORE CARBON. CARBON IN CROPS HARVESTED, DOES NOT ENTER THE ATMOSPHERE. CONVERTING CARBON BY PRODUCTS TO AGRtCULTURAL USES HAS MULTIPLE BENEFITS. SEQUESTRATION IS THE FIRST, SECOND IS INCOME FROM CROPPING.THIRD IS JOBS FROM CONVERTING CARBON TO AGRICULTURAL USES. THE FOURTH IS USING SODIUM BICARBONATE AND CALCIUM CARBONATE TO BUFFER STREAMS WITH LOW pH FROM MINE ACID RUNOFF, ETC. FISHERIES AND RECREATIONALUSERS BENEFIT BY ELIMINATING ACIDS FROM THE WATERS, ULTIMATELY, THE pH OF THE OCEANS BEGINS TO RISE. PARENTHETICALLY, THE ALLEGHENY HIGHLANDS OF WEST VIRGINIA ARE BIRTHPLACE OF SOME WATER FOR WEST VIRGINIA, TWELVE OTHER STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. FUNDING IS A PROBLEM, AND NOT THE PURVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, SOME HOW, SOME WAY, MUST ENACT A TRANSFER FEE, 1/2 OF 1 PERCENT, UPON ALL EXCHANGE AND ELECTRONICALLY TRADED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS. THESE TRADES IN AMERICA EXCEED ONE QUADRILLION DOLLARS (A 1 FOLLOWED BY 15 ZEROES) 20 PERCENT OF THESE FEES SHOULD FUND A MANHATTAN PROJECT FOR SUSTAINABLE, ENERGY SELF SUFFICIENCY IN FIVE YEARS. ALL ENERGY SOURCES , INCLUDING COAL, WILL PLAYTHEIR ROLES IN AMERICA'S ENERGY PICTURE. THESE TECHNOLOGIES, MARKETED AND SHARED WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD, AND VICA VERSA, WILL RESULT IN A MORE LIVABLE WORLD.
<PAGE>   1
           INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REVIEW REPORT; ERNST & YOUNG LLP


The Board of Directors
Autologic Information International, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Autologic Information International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 29,
1999, and the related condensed consolidated statements of operations for the
three-month periods ended January 29, 1999 and January 30, 1998, the condensed
consolidated statement of stockholders' equity for the three-month period ended
January 29, 1999, and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for
the three-month periods ended January 29, 1999 and January 30, 1998. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which will be performed
for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements referred
to above for them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Autologic Information
International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of October 30, 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
the year then ended, not presented herein, and in our report dated December 9,
1998, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial
statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying
condensed consolidated balance sheet as of October 30, 1998, is fairly stated,
in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from
which it has been derived.


March 1, 1999
Woodland Hills, California
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1552

In Re: ROBERT JUNIORS COX,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Juniors Cox, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Robert Juniors Cox petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing his immediate release from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections. We conclude

that Cox is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. &

Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The relief sought by Cox is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF OFFICERS

OF AML COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 USC § 1350

 

Pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) each of the undersigned officers ofAML Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

 

(c)           The quarterly report on Form 10-QSBfor the period ended June 30, 2005 of the Company fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(d)          Information contained in such Form 10-QSBfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated:  August 12, 2005

 
| /S/: Susan Kelley             |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| By: Susan  Kelley,            |
| Director of  Finance and      |
| Principal  Accounting Officer |

 

----
#### Robert W. Sneed *v.*Edward Lee.

The Superior Courts have a discretion to expunge an order made during the term, and an error in its exercise, cannot be examined upon appeal.

In this case, the plaintiff, on the first day of Johnston Superior Court, went to the clerk’s office, paid the costs of the suit, and directed him to dismiss it, which was accordingly done. Afterwards, by the direction of Daniel, Judge, the entry was expunged, and the cause placed on the trial docket. The defendant, by leave of the court, appealed under the act of 1831, c. 34, allowing appeals from interlocutory orders.

*Badger,*for the plaintiff.

*Bevereux, contra.*

Daniel, Judge.

The records of the court are the memorials of its transactions. Those transactions, thus entered, can be altered or expunged at by the court any time during the term they are entered, as in its discretion it may think proper, just or right. The order made in the present case, was one of those which the Superior Courts have a discretion to allow or refuse. It is an order which this court cannot interfere with, and must stand. I myself, as Judge of the Superior Court, *365made it, but now, on further reflection, I think I erred in so doing, as it did not appear that the plaintiff' was induced to consent that the clerk should make the entry, hy any fraud or contrivance practised on him, or that it was made under any mistake of his rights. A *proce-dendo*must be awarded.

Per Curiam. — Procedendo awarded. .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,532
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,970
<ALLOWANCES>                                       155
<INVENTORY>                                        139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,716
<PP&E>                                           1,288
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,022
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,559
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,316
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,509)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,366
<SALES>                                          3,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,399
<CGS>                                              956
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,189
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    87
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,691)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,691)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.67)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2004290EN.01000101.xml

| 27.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 November 2004

(2004/C 290/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3238 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,39 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4290 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69970 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9214 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5146 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,69 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1060 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5795 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,995 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,22 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6849 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4327 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2133 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 39 330 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,78 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,285 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 889 000 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6821 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5631 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2904 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8506 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1727 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 385,75 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,7999 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3238

JPY

Japanese yen

136,39

DKK

Danish krone

7,4290

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69970

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9214

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5146

ISK

Iceland króna

86,69

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1060

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5795

CZK

Czech koruna

30,995

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,22

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6849

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4327

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2133

ROL

Romanian leu

39 330

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,78

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,285

TRL

Turkish lira

1 889 000

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6821

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5631

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2904

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8506

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1727

KRW

South Korean won

1 385,75

ZAR

South African rand

7,7999

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2071 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of 

higher education from denying students admission on the basis of immigration or naturalization status. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2017 

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit 

institutions of higher education from denying students 

admission on the basis of immigration or naturalization 

status. 

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 ‘‘American Dream 

5 Promise Act’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2071 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DENIAL OF ADMISSION DUE TO 

2 IMMIGRATION OR NATURALIZATION STATUS. 

3 Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

4 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following: 

6 ‘‘(30) The institution will not deny a student 

7 admission at such institution on the basis of the stu8 dent’s immigration or naturalization status.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS