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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7033 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply a 6 percent excise 

tax on large endowments of certain private colleges and universities, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2024 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply 

a 6 percent excise tax on large endowments of certain 

private colleges and universities, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Woke Endowment Se5 curity Tax Act of 2024’’ or the ‘‘WEST Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7033 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN LARGE PRIVATE COLLEGE 

2 AND UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter H of chapter 42 of 

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 4969. EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN LARGE PRIVATE COL7 LEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENTS. 

8 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—There is hereby imposed on 

9 each specified applicable educational institution for the in10 stitution’s first taxable year beginning in 2023 a tax equal 

11 to 6 percent of the aggregate fair market value of the as12 sets of the institution at the end of the preceding taxable 

13 year. 

14 ‘‘(b) SPECIFIED APPLICABLE EDUCATIONAL INSTI15 TUTION.—For purposes of this subchapter, with respect 

16 to a taxable year, the term ‘specified applicable edu17 cational institution’ means— 

18 ‘‘(1) any applicable educational institution, 

19 other than an institution which is religious in na20 ture, the aggregate fair market value of the assets 

21 of which at the end of the preceding taxable year 

22 (other than those assets which are used directly in 

23 carrying out the institution’s exempt purpose) is at 

24 least $12,200,000,000, and 

25 ‘‘(2) any applicable educational institution— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 7033 IH

1 ‘‘(A) which operates a college on behalf of 

2 a State pursuant to State statute or contractual 

3 agreements, and 

4 ‘‘(B) the aggregate fair market value of 

5 the assets of which at the end of the preceding 

6 taxable year (other than those assets which are 

7 used directly in carrying out the institution’s 

8 exempt purpose) is at least $9,000,000,000. 

9 ‘‘(c) OTHER TERMS.—For purposes of this section— 

10 ‘‘(1) ASSETS.—The rules of section 4968(d) 

11 shall apply. 

12 ‘‘(2) STUDENT.—The rules of section 

13 4968(b)(2) shall apply.’’. 

14 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

15 for subchapter H of chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue 

16 Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the fol17 lowing new item: 

‘‘Sec. 4969. Excise tax on certain large private college and university endowments.’’. 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

20 December 31, 2022. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melvin MOORING, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6887

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 21, 2017

Melvin Mooring, Appellant Pro Se. Caitlin Roberts Cottingham, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Ap-pellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Melvin Mooring seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 11, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earli*191est, on June 20, 2017.* Because Mooring failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Mooring’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions areadequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7012 

To modify the public transportation emergency relief program, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2024 

Mr. D’ESPOSITO (for himself, Mr. AUCHINCLOSS, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. 

MENENDEZ, Mr. LAWLER, Ms. BROWNLEY, Mrs. CHAVEZ-DEREMER, Ms. 

TITUS, Mr. MOLINARO, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. BACON, Mr. ESPAILLAT, 

Mr. RYAN, and Mr. BLUMENAUER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To modify the public transportation emergency relief 

program, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Transit Emergency 

5 Relief Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EMERGENCY RELIEF 

7 PROGRAM. 

8 Chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, is amend9 ed— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7012 IH

1 (1) in section 5324, by adding at the end the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(g) FUNDING AVAILABILITY.—The amounts appro4 priated or made available under section 5338 to carry out 

5 this section for a fiscal year— 

6 ‘‘(1) shall remain available until expended; 

7 ‘‘(2) shall be in addition to amounts otherwise 

8 available to carry out this section for each fiscal 

9 year; and 

10 ‘‘(3) may be obligated for the current or prior 

11 fiscal year eligible expenses under this section. 

12 ‘‘(h) LABOR STANDARDS.—Notwithstanding sub13 section (d)(1), a grant under this section shall be subject 

14 to the requirements of section 5333.’’; and 

15 (2) in section 5338(a)— 

16 (A) in paragraph (1)— 

17 (i) in the matter preceding subpara18 graph (A), by inserting ‘‘5324,’’ after 

19 ‘‘5318,’’; 

20 (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking 

21 ‘‘$13,990,000,000’’ and inserting 

22 ‘‘$14,040,000,000’’; 

23 (iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking 

24 ‘‘$14,279,000,000’’ and inserting 

25 ‘‘$14,329,000,000’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 7012 IH

1 (iv) in subparagraph (E), by striking 

2 ‘‘$14,642,000,000’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘$14,692,000,000’’; and 

4 (B) in paragraph (2)— 

5 (i) in subparagraph (N), by striking 

6 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

7 (ii) in subparagraph (O)(ii), by strik8 ing the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; 

9 and’’; and 

10 (iii) by adding at the end the fol11 lowing: 

12 ‘‘(P) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

13 2024 through 2027 shall be available for the 

14 public transportation emergency relief program 

15 under section 5324.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT 32.1

                         LAST MILE LOGISTICS GROUP, INC.
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Annual Report of Last Mile Logistics Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Brian P. Flood, President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting 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 to the best of my knowledge:

         (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 results of operations of the
Company as of and for the periods indicated.



Date:  April 7, 2008                /S/ BRIAN P. FLOOD
                                    ------------------
                                    Brian P. Flood
                                    President, Chief Operating Officer and
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
DoT-OGT"·2.0tf- Of~5' 

B-RAIN E R DLAKES 

"'" .... ---.~:::::::::::::::::;: C H A M B E R 

Connect. Lead. Grow. 

August 16,2012 

Dennis J. DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division, X-53 

Dear Dennis: 

The Brainerd Lakes Chamber supports the Sky West RFP to serve the Brainerd Lakes 

Regional Airport. Following review of the proposals, we asked our member businesses for 

their feedback and of the responses received, almost all favored Sky West. Our support is 

based on the following: 

• 50 passenger regional jets: 

o .. Allows use of the jet bridge for comfortable boarding in all weather 

conditions, and tor all ages and physical disabilities 

o Cargo space for equipment inten~ive passengers such as our hockey players 

and golfers 

o The jets are available currently (equipment availability is still unknown with 

Great Lakes) 

• Delta connection: 

o Ease of ticketing 

o Frequent flyer program 

o Connections 

o Continuity of existing service 

• Schedule: 

o We understand the schedule is tentative and they are open to learning more 

about the needs of the community and making adjustments 

o We believe that enplanements will increase with reliable service with quality 

equipment at reasonable prices, justifying an increased number of direct 

flights to Minneapolis 

• EAS funding support: 

... o Their EAS funding request is more than $400,000 less than Great Lakes 

We look t(wward to assisting the Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport by promoting Sky West's 

service for outbound and inbound travelers. 

Sincerely, 

~~~ 

BRAINERD 

124 N. 6th St. 

Brainerd, MN 56401 

218.829.2838 

CROSSlAKE 

P.O. Box 315 

Crosslake, MN 56442 

218.692.4027 

PEQUOT lAKES 

P.O. Box 208 

Pequot Lakes, MN 56472 

218.568.8911 

WELCOME CENTER 

7393 State Highway 371 

Brainerd, MN 56401 

2 Hl.829.2838 

800.450.2838 

www.exploreiJrainen:llakes.com 

www.chamberbrainerdlakes.com
|              (i)   | the      accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal      quarter ended April 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|             (ii)  |  the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |   |                                                                                        |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:       June 9, 2010 | By:    | /s/      Michael L. Krall                                                                   |   |
|                          |   | Michael      L. KrallPresident      / Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive  Officer) |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alimamy BARRIE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6782

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

Alimamy Barrie, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Charles Gardner, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Kelly O. Hayes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alimamy Barrie seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 constitu*252tional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barrie 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: November 3, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Anna Phillips, EPA/OITA

SUBJECT: October 30, 2014 Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on October 30, 2014 to 

discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Carbon Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Ms. Malgorzata Kaluzynska

Director, Department of EU Economics

Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Rafal Jarosz

Embassy of Poland

Katarzyna Czop

Embassy of Poland
EPA Registration Jacket 83588‐1      

Vol.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Page 10 contains the product confidential statement of formula and is not included in this copy.
11

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
25
26

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
27
28
29
30
31
32

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
33

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
34

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
35

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
36
37
38
39
40
41
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0862 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0862

**2003/862/EC: Council Decision of 8 December 2003 extending the effects of Decision 2003/861/EC concerning analysis and cooperation with regard to counterfeit euro coins to those Member States which have not adopted the euro as their single currency **

*
Official Journal L 325 , 12/12/2003 P. 0045 - 0045 *

Council Decision

of 8 December 2003

extending the effects of Decision 2003/861/EC concerning analysis and cooperation with regard to counterfeit euro coins to those Member States which have not adopted the euro as their single currency

(2003/862/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 308 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(1),

Whereas:

(1) In adopting Decision of 2003/861/EC concerning analysis and cooperation with regard to counterfeit euro coins the Council provided that it is to have effect in those Member States which have adopted the euro as their single currency.

(2) It is important that the euro should enjoy the same level of protection in those Member States which have not adopted it and the necessary provisions should be taken to that end,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Council Decision 2003/861/EC concerning analysis and cooperation with regard to counterfeit euro coins shall be extended to those Member States which have not adopted the euro as their single currency.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to those Member States which have not adopted the euro as their single currency.

Done at Brussels, 8 December 2003.

For the Council

The President

F. Frattini

(1) Opinion delivered on 18 November 2003 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
#### GREEN TREE SERVICING, L.L.C.; Walter Investment Management Corporation; Best Insurors, Incorporated; Mid State Capital, L.L.C.; Mid State Trust II; Mid State Trust III; Mid State Trust IV; Mid State Trust V; Mid State Trust VI; Mid State Trust VII; Mid State Trust VIII; Mid State Trust IX; Mid State Trust X; Mid State Trust XI; Wilmington Trust Company; Mid-State Capital Corporation 2004-1 Trust; Mid-State Capital Corporation 2005-1 Trust; Mid-State Capital Corporation 2006-1 Trust; Mid-State Capital Trust 2010-1, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Marilyn MATHIS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-60104 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 14, 2017

Kaytie Michelle Pickett, Esq., Andrew Scott Harris, Adam Stone, Jones Walker, L.L.P., Jackson, MS, for Plaintiffs-Appel-lees

Mitchell Dee Thomas, Esq., Logan & Mayo, P.A., Newton, MS, Peter Emmanuel Ferraro, Ferraro Law Firm, Austin, TX, Jeffery P. Reynolds, Esq., Senior Attorney, Jeffery P. Reynolds, P.A., Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction based upon binding precedent in a virtually identical case. *Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Charles,*872 F.3d 637 (5th Cir. 2017).

*

 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.
# EUR-Lex - 32003R1762 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R1762

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1762/2003 of 7 October 2003 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2002/03 marketing year **

*
Official Journal L 254 , 08/10/2003 P. 0004 - 0004 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1762/2003

of 7 October 2003

fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2002/03 marketing year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector(1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 680/2002(2), and in particular the first indent of Article 15(8) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector(3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1140/2003(4), provides that the basic production levy and the B levy together with, if required, the coefficient referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 for sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup shall be fixed for each marketing year before 15 October in respect of the previous marketing year.

(2) For the 2002/03 marketing year, the estimate of the overall loss recorded in accordance with Article 15(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 requires, in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of that Article, the adoption of 2 % for the basic levy and 19,962 for the B levy.

(3) The overall loss recorded on the basis of known data and in accordance with Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 is covered in its entirety by the receipts from the basic production levy and the B levy. So there is no need to fix the coefficient referred to in Article 16(2) of that Regulation for the 2002/03 marketing year.

(4) The Management Committee for Sugar has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The production levies in the sugar sector shall be as follows for the 2002/03 marketing year:

(a) EUR 12,638 per tonne of white sugar as the basic production levy on A sugar and B sugar;

(b) EUR 126,139 per tonne of white sugar as the B levy on B sugar;

(c) EUR 5,330 per tonne of dry matter as the basic production levy on A isoglucose and B isoglucose;

(d) EUR 55,093 per tonne of dry matter as the B levy on B isoglucose;

(e) EUR 12,638 per tonne of dry matter equivalent sugar/isoglucose as the basic production levy on A inulin syrup and B inulin syrup;

(f) EUR 126,139 per tonne of dry matter equivalent sugar/isoglucose as the B levy on B inulin syrup.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 October 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 104, 20.4.2002, p. 26.

(3) OJ L 50, 21.2.2002, p. 40.

(4) OJ L 160, 28.6.2003, p. 33.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 USC. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Transition Report on Form 10-Kof Vantage Energy Services, Inc. (the “*Company*”) forthe fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “*Report*”),I, Christopher G. DeClaire, Chief Financial Officer Vice President, Secretary,Treasurer, and Director of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes**-**Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| September 26, 2007 | /s/ CHRISTOPHER  G. DECLAIRE                                               |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Christopher G. DeClaire                                                         |
|                    | *Chief Financial Officer Vice President,  Secretary,   Treasurer, and Director* |

 

----