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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2924 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2924

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to reauthorize the Supportive 
  Services for Veteran Families Grant Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2019

 Mr. Levin of California (for himself and Mr. Fitzpatrick) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to reauthorize the Supportive 
  Services for Veteran Families Grant Program, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Housing for Women Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR VETERAN FAMILIES 
              GRANT PROGRAM TO SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE A FOCUS 
              ON PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO WOMEN VETERANS AND THEIR 
              FAMILIES.

    Section 2044(e) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following 
        new subparagraph:
                    ``(H) $400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 
                through 2022.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Not less than $20,000,000 shall be available under 
        paragraph (1)(H) for the provision of financial assistance 
        under subsection (a) to organizations that have a focus on 
        providing assistance to women veterans and their families.''.

SEC. 3. GAP ANALYSIS OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PROGRAMS THAT 
              PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO WOMEN VETERANS WHO ARE HOMELESS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall complete 
an analysis of programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs that 
provide assistance to women veterans who are homeless or precariously 
housed to identify the areas in which such programs are failing to meet 
the needs of such women.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
of the House of Representatives a report on the analysis completed 
under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-7928.

#### Muhidin Mohamed, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1195, 131 S. Ct. 1026,

178 L. Ed. 2d 856,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 657.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 242.
#### People v Hill (Desean)

1st Dept: 139 AD3d 468 (Bronx)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)
No. 10-7855.

#### James Frances Murphy, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1162, 131 S. Ct. 972,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 237.

178 L. Ed. 2d 799,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 392 Fed. Appx. 528.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                       JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                   417,951
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             30,804
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         448,755
<PP&E>                                    84,046
<DEPRECIATION>                           (29,491)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           503,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     19,363
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                              301,727
<COMMON>                               1,461,655
<OTHER-SE>                            (1,279,435)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             503,310
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          12,525
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         330,709
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                            (318,184)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.06)



</TABLE>
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲ ▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/02

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 02 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-9-2011

USA v. Steven Tanzola

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-4477

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Steven Tanzola" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1129.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1129
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 09-4477

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

STEVEN C. TANZOLA, 

 Appellant.

_______________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Crim. Action No. 08-00724)

District Judge: Honorable Berle M. Schiller

_______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 16, 2010

_______________

ORDER

_______________

The opinion filed on March 7, 2011 shall be amended as follows: at page 4, where 

(2) “allow the parties to argue their positions relative to what they believe is an 

appropriate sentence;” shall be replaced with (2) “they must formally rule on the motions 

of both parties and state on the record whether they are granting a departure and how that 

departure affects the Guidelines calculation, and take into account the court’s pre-Booker

case law, which continues to have advisory force.” This does not affect the Judgment 

issued by the Court on March 7, 2011. An amended opinion will be filed; however the 

original filing date will not be altered.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. 

Circuit Judge

Dated: June 9, 2011
No. 10-7451.

#### Alonzo Dean Shephard, Petitioner v. CBS President, et al.

562 U.S. 1184, 131 S. Ct. 1005,

178 L. Ed. 2d 836,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 862.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
No. 10-7362.

#### In re Ernest Wilcock, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1133, 131 S. Ct. 938,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 40.

178 L. Ed. 2d 807,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
No. 10-7655.

#### Charles E. Johnson, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1157, 131 S. Ct. 956,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 461.

178 L. Ed. 2d 788,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

*789Same case below, 387 Fed. Appx. 402.
No. 09-11371.

#### William A. Brewer, III, Petitioner v. Virginia.

562 U.S. 1087, 131 S. Ct. 693,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9260.

178 L. Ed. 2d 522,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 876, 131 S. Ct. 186, 178 L. Ed. 2d 112, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6663.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,469
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (201)
<INVENTORY>                                     13,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,617
<PP&E>                                          20,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,005)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,110
<BONDS>                                          2,622
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,363
<SALES>                                         39,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,279
<CGS>                                           24,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   246
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  68
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,696
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,478
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,218
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,019)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,199
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   199.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   199.94
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 12**

 

 

**THETITAN CORPORATION**

** **

**COMPUTATIONOF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

** **

**(DOLLARAMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS**)

 

 
|                                                          |   | **YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER 31,** |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|                                                          |   | **1999**                     |   | **2000** |   | **2001** |   | **2002** |   | **2003** |   |
| Earnings                                                      |   |                         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income (loss)  from continuing operations before income taxes |   | $                            | 60,541 |   | $ | (30,339 | ) | $ | (7,179 | ) | $ | (19,723 | ) | $ | 52,304 |   |
| Fixed charges                                                 |   | 25,612                       |   | 43,149 |   | 45,138 |   | 46,708 |   | 48,897 |   |
|                                                          |   |                         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings                                                      |   | $                            | 86,153 |   | $ | 12,810 |   | $ | 37,959 |   | $ | 26,985 |   | $ | 101,201 |   |
|                                                          |   |                         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                                                |   |                         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                              |   | $                            | 18,876 |   | $ | 35,672 |   | $ | 36,669 |   | $ | 32,664 |   | $ | 34,574 |   |
| Interest factor  included in rents                            |   | 6,736                        |   | 7,477 |   | 8,469 |   | 14,044 |   | 14,323 |   |
|                                                          |   |                         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges                                                 |   | $                            | 25,612 |   | $ | 43,149 |   | $ | 45,138 |   | $ | 46,708 |   | $ | 48,897 |   |
|                                                          |   |                         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of  earnings to fixed charges                           |   | 3.4                          |   | 0.3 |   | 0.8 |   | 0.6 |   | 2.1 |   |
| Deficiency                                                    |   | $                            | — |   | $ | (30,339 | ) | $ | (7,179 | ) | $ | (19,723 | ) | $ | — |   |

 

 

----
RPPOB AMPS SUPPLIER REGISTRIATION

After typing https://amps.dla.mil into your browser, there is a small chance you will be prompted for a certificate. If this 

occurs, hit the Cancel button. 

Log in with your DoD AMPS account credentials:

Check this Box
STEP 1

STEP 2
STEP 3 

Review the DLA Privacy Act Statement and click “Accept” to continue.

 

STEP 4

STEP 4 Select the “Request Role” link under the “Requests” heading: 

STEP 5
Complete all required “Organization Information” and “Supervisor Information” fields. Click “Next”

STEP 6

In the “Browse Roles by Application” section, under the “DLA Aviation Applications” category, click on “VESTARS”. 

The “VESTARS Prod – Organic Manufacturing Site VESTARS -113” role should appear at the bottom. Click the 

“=>”button to move the role into the “Selected Role” area. Click “Next”.

STEP 7
Enter the required Justification, along with any Optional Information and attachments. *Important: A CAGE code must 

be entered in the ‘Role Attributes’ area at the bottom. Click ‘Next’ when finished.

STEP 8

Review the information on the “Role Request Summary” page.

If all of the information is correct, click the “Submit” button to complete the role request.
No. 10-7694.

#### Eduardo Vasquez-Martinez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1158, 131 S. Ct. 959,

178 L. Ed. 2d 791,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 554.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 616 F.3d 600.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2595 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2595

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to increase the income limit 
                     of the simplified needs test.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2019

 Mr. Kinzinger (for himself and Mrs. Beatty) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to increase the income limit 
                     of the simplified needs test.

    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 ``Improving Middle Class Access to 
Higher Education Act''.

SEC. 2. SIMPLIFIED NEEDS TEST.

    Section 479(b)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1087ss(b)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``$50,000'' and 
        inserting ``$100,000''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``$50,000'' and 
        inserting ``$100,000''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect with respect to 
award year 2019-2020, and each succeeding award year.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36451-36452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17930]


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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATIONS SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 14, 1998.


[[Page 36452]]


PLACE: NTSB Board Room, 5th Floor, 490 L' Enfant Plaza, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20594.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
6912A--Railroad Accident Report--Derailment of Amtrak Train 4, on the 
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, Kingman, Arizona, August 9, 1997.
6667A--Marine Accident Report--Fire aboard the Tug Scandia and the 
Subsequent Grounding of the Tug and Tank Barge North Cape, Moonstone, 
Beach, South Kingston, Rhode Island, January 19, 1996.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 314-6100
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhonda Underwood, (202) 314-6065.
Rhonda Underwood,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-17930 Filed 7-1-98; 12:19 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17031]



[[Page 34860]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-609-000]


Sabine Pipe Line Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

June 22, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 12, 1998, Sabine Pipe Line Company 
(Sabine), P.O. Box 4781, Houston, Texas 77210-4781, filed in Docket No. 
CP98-609-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.211) for authorization to install and operate a sales tap to 
deliver gas to Warren Petroleum Company L. P. (Warren), under Sabine's 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-199-000, pursuant to 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the 
request that is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    The proposed sales tap will interconnect Sabine's 16-inch low-
pressure mainline to Warren's Lake Charles Fractionation Plant near 
Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
    Sabine states that it will construct and pay for the 
interconnection, including a meter station and approximately 1,500 feet 
of 12-inch pipeline, that will connect Warren's facilities and Sabine's 
existing mainline piping. Sabine states that it will own and operate 
instrumentation and telemetry for flow control, the control valve 
assemblies and the connections to Sabine's mainline piping. Sabine also 
states that the maximum quantity of gas that will be delivered through 
the proposed interconnect is 10,000 D.H. per day. Sabine adds that the 
proposed delivery point will be available to all existing and potential 
shippers receiving service under Sabine's FT-1 and IT-1 rate schedules 
set forth in its FERC Gas Tariff. Sabine states the cost to construct 
the proposed facilities is $195,000.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17031 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2014052EN.01004602.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/46

---

Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Unicaja Banco v Commission

(Case T-702/13)

2014/C 52/89

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Unicaja Banco, SA (Malaga, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Biondi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

| — | annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

Bankia

Commission

---
No. 10-7566.

#### In re Lawrence Kenemore, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1133, 131 S. Ct. 949,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 545.

178 L. Ed. 2d 808,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.