alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****    - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский 

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

        - Student Loans
        - Grants
        - Laws
        - Data

# Ed.gov Menu

# Ed.gov Menu

                                    -                  How Do I Find...?    - Student loans, forgiveness
- Higher Education Rulemaking
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms
- More...
      Information About...    - Elevating Teaching
- Early Learning
- Engage Every Student
- Unlocking Career Success
- Cybersecurity
             
*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
- Student Loans
- Repaying Loans
- Defaulted Loans
- Loan Forgiveness
- Loan Servicers
- Grants & Programs
- Apply for Pell Grants
- Grants Forecast
- Apply for a Grant
- Laws & Guidance
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- Civil Rights
- IDEA Website
- Data & Research
- Education Statistics
- Postsecondary Education Data
- ED Data Express
- Nation's Report Card
- What Works Clearinghouse
- Open Data Platform
- COVID Relief Data
- About Us
- Contact Us
- ED Offices
- Jobs
- Press Releases
- FAQs
- Recursos en español
- Budget, Performance
- Privacy Program
- Homeroom Blog
- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information Quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50934 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LATARSHA ROSHILIA BARNES, also known as Latarsha Barnes, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CR-82-1

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Latarsha Ro s h i lia Barnes appeals the 168-month sentence imposed following her guilty plea conviction for attempted murder. Barnes’s sole a r gument on appeal is that the district court erred in determining tha t her base offense level was 33 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.1(a)(1). She argues that there are two base offense levels associated with attempted murder and that it is “impossible to discern which base offense level to apply.” According to Barnes, because “[t]he application of the two base offense U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D July 14, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-50934 Document: 00511539969 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2011No. 10-50934

levels is a choice between the same conduct, with identical elements

. . . the rule of lenity should apply.” Review of this issue is for plain error. See United States v. Price, 516 F.3d 285, 286-87 (5th Cir. 20 08). Section 2A2.1 applies to two offenses: assau l t w i th intent to commit murder and attempted murder. The base offense level under that section is 33 if “the object of the offense would have constituted first degree murder,” and 27 if “otherwise.” §§ 2A2.1(a)(1), (2). Section 2A2.1, comment. (n.1), references the definition of murder set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1111. Barnes does not dispute that she pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, attempted murder. Additionally, she does not dispute that the object of her offense would have constituted first degree murder under § 2A2.1( a) ( 1 ) a nd § 1111. Finally, the reco r d r e flects that she acted with the requisite premedit a t i o n under § 1111. Thus, Barnes has failed to establish that the district court committed any error, plain or otherwise. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 10-50934 Document: 00511539969 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated condensed financial statements of American Restaurant Partners,
L.P. at March 28, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-2000
<CASH>                                          934274
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1016431
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     449519
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2083923
<PP&E>                                        35884298
<DEPRECIATION>                                16902664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                28974503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7932092
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (6051643)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  28974503
<SALES>                                       14799542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              14799542
<CGS>                                          3612544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 13444661
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 86896
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              710806
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 436491
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             436491
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    436491
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5557]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE


Depository Library Council to the Public Printer; Meeting

    The Depository Library Council to the Public Printer (DLC) will 
hold its Spring 1997 meeting on Monday, April 14, 1997, through 
Thursday, April 17, 1997, in Arlington, Virginia. The meeting sessions 
will take place from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, 
Wednesday and from 8:30 a.m. until 12 noon on Thursday. The sessions 
will be held at the Washington National Airport Hilton, 2399 Jefferson 
Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202. The purpose of this meeting 
is to discuss the Federal Depository Library Program. The meeting is 
open to the public.
    A limited number of hotel rooms have been reserved at the 
Washington National Airport Hilton for anyone needing hotel 
accommodations. Telephone: 703-418-6800; FAX: 703-418-3762.
    Please specify the Depository Library Council when you contact the 
hotel. Room cost per night is $124.
Michael F. DiMario,
Public Printer.
[FR Doc. 97-5557 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1520-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 3, 2018

a0625

Order 

Clerk

July 3, 2018

155294

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155294

COA: 323314

Wayne CC: 14-001679-FC

SEAN DANIEL RUTLEDGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


              [LETTERHEAD - NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.]







           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
           ---------------------------------------------------------

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form
10-K of Mission Resources Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2002, and to the incorporation by reference thereof into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos.
333-63562, 333-54798, 333-57827, 333-27707 and 333-91326, of the references to
this firm relating to the Company's estimated domestic proved reserves as of
December 31, 2001 and December 31, 2002.


                                           NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.


                                           By:  /s/ J. Carter Henson, Jr.
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              J. Carter Henson, Jr.
                                              Senior Vice President


Houston, Texas
March 25, 2003
Submitted December 19, 2016;

portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed, otherwise affirmed February 1, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*ALEXANDER RICO ORTIZ, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Washington County Circuit Court

C140213CR; A159047

388 P3d 1248

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

*611PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for attempted first-degree rape, ORS 163.375, attempted first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427, and fourth-degree assault, ORS 163.160. He was sentenced to a total of 30 months’ imprisonment, with three years’ post-prison supervision, and ordered to pay, among other obligations, $1,144 in court-appointed attorney fees. On appeal, he raises three assignments of error. We write to address only his third assignment, in which he contends that the trial court plainly erred in imposing $1,144 in court-appointed attorney fees without a basis in the record to determine that defendant had the ability to pay them, and we reject the other assignments without discussion.1

The state concedes that the court committed plain error when it imposed attorney fees in this case, because the record is devoid of evidence that defendant would be able to repay them. We agree and accept the state’s concession. *See State v. Coverstone,*260 Or App 714, 716, 320 P3d 670 (2014) (holding that imposition of court-appointed attorney fees is plain error when the record is silent as to the defendant’s ability to pay the fees ordered). Given the amount of attorney fees imposed, the length of defendant’s prison term, and the fact that the record would not support a finding that defendant could pay those fees, we further conclude that it is appropriate for us to exercise our discretion to correct the error. *See, e.g., State v. Crimmins,*267 Or App 316, 341 P3d 750 (2014) (reversing as plain error imposition of $1,100 in attorney fees where defendant was sentenced to 58 months in prison and there was no evidence in the record regarding defendant’s ability to pay the fees). Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the judgment.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.

1

 In those assignments, defendant contends that the trial court erred (1) “when it prevented him from eliciting testimony about an attorney having told defendant not to speak to police officers,” and (2) in not merging his convictions for attempted first-degree rape and attempted first-degree sexual abuse.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8347 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8347

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the establishment of 
   a corporation to conceal election contributions and donations by 
                           foreign nationals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2020

    Mr. Rouda (for himself, Mr. Allred, and Mr. Levin of Michigan) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the establishment of 
   a corporation to conceal election contributions and donations by 
                           foreign nationals.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Shell Company Abuse Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 29 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 612. Establishment of corporation to conceal election 
              contributions and donations by foreign nationals
    ``(a) Offense.--It shall be unlawful for an owner, officer, 
attorney, or incorporation agent of a corporation, company, or other 
entity to establish or use the corporation, company, or other entity 
with the intent to conceal an activity of a foreign national (as 
defined in section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 
U.S.C. 30121)) prohibited under such section 319.
    ``(b) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be 
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or 
both.''.
    (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter 29 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 611 the following:

``612. Establishment of corporation to conceal election contributions 
                            and donations by foreign nationals.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the post-effective amendment of 
Houston Industries Incorporated (formerly named Houston Lighting & Power 
Company) on Form S-8 to the registration statement on Form S-4 (File No. 
333-11329) of our report dated June 20, 1997, on our audits of the financial
statements of the Minnegasco Division Employees' Retirement Savings Plan as of
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for the year ended December 31, 1996, which
report is included in the Minnegasco Division Employees' Retirement Savings Plan
Annual Report on Form 11-K.


                                         COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Houston, Texas
August 6, 1997
DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD, STOP 6201

FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-6201

May 17, 2024 

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION C 

SUBJECT: Policy Statement on Diversity and Inclusion 

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s (DTRA) strength lies in our diversity, which 

serves as the driving force behind our organization's excellence and mission success. DTRA is

committed to growing and maintaining diversity among its workforce, as well as making sure 

our work environment is one where all employees feel included and are treated with mutual 

respect and dignity. 

The men and women who comprise our workforce reflect a broad range of viewpoints, 

ideas, and backgrounds. It is this variation of backgrounds, attributes, perspectives, and 

worldviews amongst persons of differing cultures, races, religions, ages, genders, sexual 

orientations, abilities, education, personalities, socioeconomic status, and other characteristics 

that will offer DTRA the best opportunity to become more innovative and dynamic. Continued 

mission success requires the full and active participation of each one of our talented and 

committed employees.

I applaud our efforts to create a positive work environment that challenges our employees 

to accomplish our mission to deter strategic attack against the United States and its allies; 

prevent, reduce, and counter weapons of mass destruction and emerging threats; and prevail 

against adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction in crisis and conflict. All leaders 

must continue to foster an environment where our employees can contribute, prosper, and 

advance in their careers. By fostering an atmosphere of diversity and inclusion, we will value 

and appreciate the strengths afforded by the differences in styles, ideas, and organizational 

contributions of each employee. Each of you is encouraged to continue your efforts toward a 

work environment where all employees can reach their full potential and maximize their 

contributions. 

Rebecca K.C. Hersman

Director
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/23/2010 09:30 PM

----- |------------> | From: | |------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | To: | |------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Cc: | |------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Date: | |------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |07/20/2010 02:56 PM |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |cost/ton estimates for SI RICE |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi Cortney, One other piece of information that I thought would be of interest to you is the estimate of the cost of control per ton of pollutant reduced.The attached spreadsheet provides the estimates for 2SLB, 4SLB, and 4SRB nonemergency engines at both major and area sources. For 2SLB and 4SRB engines at major sources, we looked at the cost/ton of going from a floor that is based on no add-on emissions control to an above-the-floor level based on emission levels achieved using oxidation catalyst for 2SLB and NSCR for 4SRB. I didn't provide a cost/ton for 4SLB engines at major sources because the floor is already based on levels achieved using oxidation catalyst control. For 2SLB, 4SLB, and 4SRB engines at area sources, we looked at the annual cost for going beyond GACT (management practices) and establishing emission limits based on the use of oxidation catalyst or NSCR for those engines. (See attached file: Existing SI RICE NESHAP cost per ton estimates 7-20-10.xls)

Melanie King Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-2469 Fax: (919) 541-5450 king.melanie@epa.gov
No. 11-10250.

#### Collier v. Blagojevich et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-624
In Re: SAMUEL HENDERSON, JR., Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-96-38-V) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Henderson, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Samuel Henderson, Jr., brought this mandamus petition seeking an order directing the district court to render a decision on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. Subsequently, the district court entered an order granting Henderson's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because his mandamus petition is now moot, we deny the petition. We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid in the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
DISMISS and VACATE ; and Opinion Filed October 17, 2013. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00651

- CV

HI SOON & YOUNG SHIN PARK , Appellant
V. WELLS FARGO BANK, AS TRUST EE OF THE ABFC 2004

- OPT2 TRUST , Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 02647



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Lang

- Miers, and Evans Opinion Per Curiam

The C ourt has before it the parties’ October 10, 2013 joint motion to vacate trial

judgment and dismiss appellants’ causes of action with prejudice and appellee’s causes of action

without prejudice. We GRANT the motion, VACATE the judgment of the trial court w ithout

regard to the merits, and DISMISS appellant’s causes of action with prejudice and appellee’s

causes of action without prejudice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a).

PER CURIAM

130651F.P05– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

HI SOON & YOUNG SHIN PARK, Appellants

No. 05

- 13

- 00651

- CV V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ABFC 2004

- OPT2 TRUST, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 02647. Opinion delivered Per Curiam. Justices O'Neill, Lang

- Miers and Evans sitting for the Court.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is VACATED without regard to the merits. Appellants’ causes of action are DISMISSED with prejudice, and appellee’s causes of action are DISMISSED without prejudice to the refiling of the same. It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 17 th day of October, 2013.

/Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
#### E.T.S., III v. C.S.

770 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/13/2017

C0048CV2005002186, (Northampton)

Quashed