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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 829 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 829

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1450 Montauk Highway in Mastic, New York, as the ``Army Specialist 
               Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2019

Mr. Zeldin (for himself, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Suozzi, Miss Rice of 
New York, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Jeffries, Ms. Clarke 
of New York, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Rose of New York, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney 
of New York, Mr. Espaillat, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Engel, 
  Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Mr. Delgado, Mr. 
 Tonko, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Brindisi, Mr. Reed, Mr. Katko, Mr. Morelle, 
 Mr. Higgins of New York, and Mr. Collins of New York) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1450 Montauk Highway in Mastic, New York, as the ``Army Specialist 
               Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST THOMAS J. WILWERTH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1450 Montauk Highway in Mastic, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Army Specialist Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Army 
Specialist Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
e 

fxolf 

e 

fxolf 

ʜalloVUʑoWnVed 

e 

ʜalloVUejecVed 

H!"Iʛ! 

M#'#& 

&.#)(/R!#.,, 

OȨ 

I(.,(.

!MV 

P/&#˽ #.(

OȨ 

!##&#.# ˽!(3 

M#&#.,3 

R,/#.'(.OȨ 

O. ,S..˽!(3 R!#.,.#)(!,#0

R!#.,.#)(O. , 

24041 

18018 15723 

70480 

14943 

0 0 0 0 0 

egiUVTaVion#oTmoWTce 

oValegiUVeTedSoVeTU 

ȂȀ˿ˑ˻ȁȀ 

ecVionʛVSoVeTegiUVTaVion 

Rgistrtion#ormsRi; 

˼˿˿ˑȄ˿˿ 

ʑon˄TmaVionoVi˄caVionUenV 

˻ 

P)&&#(! 

P& 

UO˳˽V˽ ˽(. P,)0##)(& 

ˏ&&). 

,&3V). 

˳(., 

V).3 

M#& 

T/,()/. 

O., 

426596 

38984 

1915 2038 0 0 14 

ecVion#VWTnoWVb[
eVhod 

˳)/(.#/&& ˳)/(. 

P,. 

R$. P,)0##)(& 

O., 

1313 

1916 

734 

0 

Stion"˪ro;isionlˏllots 

U(#),'S,0# 

N)('#&#.,3O0,

O., 

ecVionʜVʑʛSʛ 

˻ ˻ 

˽ˑ˾Ȃ˻ 

˽ˑ˾Ȃ˻ 

ʜalloVUTanUmiVVed 

ʛ ʛ 

ToXiUionalʜalloVoValyhxpkh WTnoWVoValyikpxjil 

N).˴S) ˴Ȧ&˴3˴˴&(%˴),˴y,)˴/˴.)˴.˴().˴#(!˴,*),.), 

$/,##.#)(˴().)&&.#(!... 

Slt˒ RH!"ISɤ! 

ʛ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

- -

- -

- - -

gefk"ʛS!aVaʜTief
	

U ' 

"

" - '-

"

- "

"

- - - "

" "

' -'

- - "
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

# RECEiVED MAR 1 72015 

## HEARING DOCKET

In the Matter of Hortman Aviation Services, Inc. 2010EA170043 Judge NotAssigned
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby notifies the United States Department of Transportation, Office of Hearings, and the Respondent, pursuant to 14 C.F.R §13.204(b), that it shall be represented in the above-stated action by the attorney listed below. All communications, notices, pleadings, or documents are respectfully requested to be forwarded as follows: Christian Lewerenz Federal Aviation Administration Office of Regional Counsel 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 Telephone: 718 553-3273 Facsimile: 718 995-5699 E-mail: christian.lewerenz@faa.gov Respectfully submitted, Alfred R Johnson, Jr. Regional Counsel

# By~/**~** Attorney

## Dated:~-**fJAJt~**CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifythat on this day copies ofthe foregoing Notice ofAppearance were placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, Certified Mail
- Return Receipt Requested addressed as follows: H.M. Hortman President Hortman Aviation Services, Inc. 9800Ashton Road Philadelphia, PA 19114 Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 800 IndependenceAvenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building- Room 2014

Date:

____ 

### -·_9_Z_!J_1'i

__ isa ooks Pa legal Specialist Office of Regional Counsel 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434

2
EX-10.26



 Exhibit 10.26 

[Letterhead] 
 December 7,
2012 
 Thomas C. Geiser 
 1733 Ocean Avenue, Suite 325 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 
 Dear Tom: 

We would like to set forth the terms of your compensation as a director on the board of directors (the “Board”) of Surgical
Care Affiliates, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“SCA”), and such other subsidiaries of SCA as the Managing Member of ASC Acquisition LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Parent”), may
reasonably request from time to time. The terms of this letter agreement (this “Agreement”) will be effective as of July 1, 2012 (the “Effective Date”) and will supersede and replace any existing director
compensation arrangements between the parties, including that certain letter agreement dated April 14, 2008, as of the Effective Date. 
  

	 	I.	Annual Compensation. 

 You will receive (a) an annual cash retainer of
$50,000 (the “Retainer”), payable in equal quarterly installments of $12,500 in arrears within 30 days after the end of each quarter of service (if you serve part of a quarter, the payment will be prorated based on the number of
weeks in the quarter served and paid within 30 days of the termination of your service), and (b) $30,000 in the form of restricted stock units (the “RSUs”) of the Parent, pursuant to a Restricted Equity Unit Grant Agreement in
the form attached hereto. The initial RSU grant will occur as soon as practicable after the date hereof and will be effective for purposes of vesting as of July 1, 2012. Thereafter you shall receive $30,000 in the form of RSUs of the Parent on
or about each anniversary of July 1, subject to your continuing to serve on the Board on each such anniversary. The RSUs will vest ratably over a two-year period (i.e., 50% vested 12 months after the grant and 100% vested 24 months after the
grant), subject to your continuing to serve on the Board through such date. 
  

	 	II.	Attendance at Board Meetings; Per Meeting Fee 

 You will be expected to use your
reasonable best efforts to attend all Board meetings, and will be expected to attend a minimum of three quarterly Board meetings each year in person. Otherwise, you may attend such meeting by telephonic or other electronic means. Reasonable expenses
actually incurred by you in traveling to the Board Meetings shall be reimbursed by SCA upon presentation of such documentation as SCA may reasonably request. 








	 	III.	Reelection to the Board 

 Your continued service on the Board will be subject in
all respects to the provisions of the limited liability agreements of each of SCA and the Parent. 
  

					
	Sincerely,
	
	ASC ACQUISITION LLC, sole member of Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC
	By: TPG Partners V, L.P., its Managing Member
	By: TPG GenPar V, L.P., its general partner
	By: TPG Advisors V, Inc., its general partner
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Todd Sisitsky

		 	Name:	 	Todd Sisitsky
		 	Title:	 	Vice President


  

			
	ACCEPTED:
	
	 /s/ Thomas C. Geiser

	Thomas C. Geiser
		
	Date:	 	 12/31/12
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 09

- 283

(Filed December 30 , 201 4 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

*

LOUIS J. BALESTRA JR. and *

PHYLLIS M. BALESTRA, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

At the time the memorandum opinion granting summary judgment to the

defendant was issued, the Court had not chosen to publish it in the Federal Claims

Reporter. See Balestra v. United States , No. 09

- 283T, 2014 WL 2443767 (Fed. Cl.

May 31, 2014). The government ha s since requested publication

, arguing that legal

issues decided in the opinion were matters of first impression and that publication

of the opinion would be of assistance to tax practitioners. See Req. for Publ ’ n, ECF

No. 89, at 1

– 2. As precedents our opinions are, of course, only persuasive at best,

even among our coll eagues, see CBY Design Builders v. United States , 105 Fed. Cl.

303, 332 n.23 (2012), and publication probably does not make them more easily

found or cited by litigators . Nor should publication affect the persuasiveness of an

opinion, as the discretionary decision to publish turns on such subjective factors as

whether the author believes the opinion adds significantly to the body of law or is of

widespread interest.

Decisions granting dispositive motions are often published, perhaps under

the suspicion t hat the grounds for d eciding a particular case are of interest to

litigants in similar cases. The major exception is the category of cases litigated pro

se , in which the issues are presented, framed, and litigated without the benefit of

counsel on both si des. That this matter originated as a pro se proceeding, until

plaintiffs’ counsel graciously agreed to take it on, initially disposed the undersignednot to publish the opinion granting judgment. Upon reflection, the Court concludes

that the opinion did address novel issues, the resolution of which should have been

published. Accordingly, the government’s request for publication is GRANTED

, and the opinion will be reissued for publication with some minor, non

- substantive

corrections.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Victor J. Wolski

VICTOR J. WOLSKI

Judge

- 2

-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Christopher ALEXANDER, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 17-10725 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 18, 2018

Christopher Alexander, Pro Se

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. ■

PER CURIAM: *

Christopher Alexander, federal prisoner #25906-177, moves to proceed *in forma pmperis*(“IFP”) on appeal to challenge the denial of his motion requesting reconsideration of the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith.. By moving for IFP status, Alexander is challenging the district court’s certification. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Alexander’s motion for reconsideration was filed more than 14 days after the *193entry of the order denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion, but because the applicable time limit is not jurisdictional and may be waived, the district court had jurisdiction to consider the motion for reconsideration. *See United States v. Collins,*— Fed. Appx. —, —, 2017 WL 5013046, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 2, 2017); *see also United States v. Martinez,*496 F.3d 387, 388 (5th Cir. 2007). Similarly, although it is not clear on the current record whether Alexander filed a timely notice of appeal after the denial of his motion for reconsideration, there is no jurisdictional impediment for us to consider his appeal even if it was untimely. We therefore pretermit any issue concerning the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration or his notice of appeal from the denial of that motion. *See Martinez,*496 F.3d at 389.

We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration and the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009); *United States v. Rabhan,*540 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 2008). Alexander contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion by (1) committing procedural error in failing to calculate the applicable guideline range in light of Amendments 706, 750, and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines and (2) concluding that the relevant sentencing factors weighed against a sentence reduction. The record does not support Alexander’s averments. Furthermore, to the extent that he also seeks to challenge his original sentence, such a challenge is not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. *See Dillon v. United States,*660 U.S. 817, 825, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271-26, 831 (2010).

Alexander has failed to show that the instant appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for IFP status is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Exhibit
        32.1
  Certification
        of CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1)
        this Quarterly Report of BF Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
        10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully
        complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
        Act
        of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company
        and
        its results of operations as of and for the periods covered therein.
 
 **BF
                  ENTERPRISES, INC.**Date: 
                  August 12, 2005
                By:
                /s/
                  Brian P. BurnsChairman
                  of
                  the Board and Chief Executive
                  Officer
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
        by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
        the
        Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon request.
# Members of DTRA Assess Partner Capabilities across Moldova

/ Published Sept. 20, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, VA, www.dtra.mil
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
United Financial Group, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 2-84691, 2-83131, and 2-91695) on Form S-8 of United Financial Group, Inc.
of our report with explanatory paragraph, dated February 14, 1997, relating to
the consolidated statements of financial condition of United Financial Group,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, common stockholders' deficit and cash
flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 1996
which report appears in the December 31, 1996 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
United Financial Group, Inc.

Our report dated February 14, 1997, contains an explanatory paragraph that
states that significant claims have been made against the Company by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision and others.
Furthermore, the Company did not make required principal payments on its 9%
Secured Sinking Fund Debentures Due 1993. Since 1988, the Company has attempted
to negotiate settlements with its creditors and claimants, and, in 1995, the
Company entered into agreements with certain of those creditors and claimants
which would require payments to them, subject to bankruptcy proceedings and the
confirmation of a plan of reorganization. On January 14, 1997, the Company filed
a petition for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and
submitted a Plan of Reorganization specifying proposed payments to certain of
its creditors and claimants. The Plan was confirmed on March 31, 1997. The
Company is now operating its business as a debtor-in-possession. The payments
outlined in that Plan of Reorganization exceed total assets of the Company at
December 31, 1996. These matters raise substantial doubt about the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern.

                                                           KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
Houston, Texas
March 31, 1997
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 19690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07149]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; RFA Panel: Tobacco Regulatory Science A.
    Date: May 5, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Sepandarmaz Aschrafi, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4040D, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
451.4251, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96d7e4fbf7ecb8f7e5f5fee4f7f0ffd6f8fffeb8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a2b18070b10440b190902180b0c032a040302440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 31, 2022.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-07149 Filed 4-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 71

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Federal retirement cost-of-living

adjustments should not be delayed, and that retirement contributions

on the part of Federal agencies and Federal and postal employees should

not be increased.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 1997

Mr. CUMMINGS (for himself, Mr. HOYER, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. WYNN, Mr.

FILNER, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. FAZIO of California, and Mr. DEFAZIO) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Federal retirement

cost-of-living adjustments should not be delayed, and

that retirement contributions on the part of Federal

agencies and Federal and postal employees should not

be increased.

Whereas, over the years, Federal employees and retirees have

regularly been forced to bear a disproportionate share in

connection with deficit reduction;

Whereas it would be inequitable to delay cost-of-living adjustments for Federal retirees when like delays for similarly

situated retirees under other systems are clearly inappropriate; and
2

•HCON 71 IH

Whereas it would be unfair to require greater retirement contributions on the part of Federal agencies and Federal

and postal employees when the Congressional Budget Office testified before Congress, on June 28, 1995 (and reaffirmed on April 29, 1997), that ‘‘the retirement fund

does not face a financial crisis’’, and that the fund’s

‘‘projected cash flow deficits appear to be manageable

under the current pay-as-you-go policy’’: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) cost-of-living adjustments for Federal retir4 ees should be paid in January of each year, as cur5 rent law prescribes, and should not be delayed, and

6 (2) retirement contributions on the part of Fed7 eral agencies and Federal and postal employees

8 should not be increased,

9 whether as part of a budget agreement or otherwise.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,570
<SECURITIES>                                    40,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,776,517
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 13,586,870
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,821,176
<PP&E>                                       7,848,571
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,848,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,164,039
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        130
<COMMON>                                       228,459
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,453,862
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,848,920
<SALES>                                     11,076,794
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,388,139
<CGS>                                       10,671,737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,847,523
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              392119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,851,503)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,851,503)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,851,503)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>