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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3687 

To prohibit the use of funds provided for the official travel expenses of 

Members of Congress and other officers and employees of the legislative 

branch for airline accommodations which are not coach-class accommodations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 10, 2019 

Mr. RUIZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds provided for the official travel 

expenses of Members of Congress and other officers and 

employees of the legislative branch for airline accommodations which are not coach-class accommodations, 

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 ‘‘Coach-Only Airfare 

5 for Capitol Hill Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3687 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING USE OF FUNDS FOR OFFICIAL TRAV2 EL EXPENSES OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

3 AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES FOR 

4 AIRLINE ACCOMMODATIONS OTHER THAN 

5 COACH-CLASS. 

6 (a) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in subsection 

7 (b), no funds appropriated or otherwise made available for 

8 the official travel expenses of a Member of Congress or 

9 other officer or employee of any office in the legislative 

10 branch may be used for airline accommodations which are 

11 not coach-class accommodations. 

12 (b) EXCEPTIONS.—Funds described in subsection (a) 

13 may be used for airline accommodations which are not 

14 coach-class accommodations for an individual described in 

15 subsection (a) if the use of the funds for such accommoda16 tions would be permitted under sections 301–10.121 

17 through 301–10.125 of title 41 of the Code of Federal 

18 Regulations if the individual were an employee of an agen19 cy which is subject to chapter 301 of such title. 

20 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

21 may be construed to affect any officer or employee of an 

22 office of the legislative branch which, as of the date of 

23 the enactment of this Act, is subject to chapter 301 of 

24 title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

25 (d) DEFINITIONS.— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3687 IH

1 (1) COACH-CLASS ACCOMMODATIONS.—In this 

2 Act, the term ‘‘coach-class accommodations’’ means 

3 the basic class of accommodation by airlines that is 

4 normally the lowest fare offered regardless of airline 

5 terminology used, and (as referred to by airlines) 

6 may include tourist class or economy class, as well 

7 as single class when the airline offers only one class 

8 of accommodations to all travelers. 

9 (2) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.—In this Act, the 

10 term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ means a Senator or a 

11 Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commis12 sioner to, the Congress. 

13 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

14 This Act shall apply with respect to fiscal year 2020 

15 and each succeeding fiscal year. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Michael George IVERSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7637.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Mohamed Admed Hassan Abdallah OMRAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7042.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
II-01223

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ford, Mildred Y. <mford@CFTC.gov>

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:27 AM

OTCDefinitions <OTCDefinitions@CFTC.gov>

FW: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

..... Original Message .....

From: Anne Wolf [mailto:wolfmdst@sonic.net]

Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:39 AM

To: dfadefinitions

Subject: Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Anne Wolf

1452 Townview Ave.

Santa Rosa, CA 95405
# C_2009069EN.01002403.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/24

---

Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-7/09)

(2009/C 69/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and J. Sénéchal, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (1) or, in any case, by not communicating them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (1) or, in any case, by not communicating them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The deadline for transposition of Directive 2006/86/EC, with the exception of Article 10, expired on 1 September 2007. When this action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any case, had not communicated them to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 294, p. 32.

1

---
Floyd DAMREN, petitioner, v. FLORIDA, et al.

No. 16-6498.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2009090EN.01004003.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/40

---

Action brought on 20 February 2009 — Almeida Campos and Others v Council of the European Union

(Case F-14/09)

2009/C 90/66

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Ana Maria Almeida Campos (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the appointing authority’s decisions not to promote the applicants to grade AD 12 under the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote to that grade, under the same promotion procedure, the officials whose names are included on the list of promoted officials published in Staff Note No 72/08 of 21 April 2008.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decisions of the appointing authority not to promote the applicants to grade AD 12 under the 2008 promotion procedure (2008 session) and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote to that grade, under the same promotion procedure, the officials whose names are included on the list of promoted officials published in Staff Note No 72/08 of 21 April 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions of the appointing authority not to promote the applicants to grade AD 12 under the 2008 promotion procedure (2008 session) and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote to that grade, under the same promotion procedure, the officials whose names are included on the list of promoted officials published in Staff Note No 72/08 of 21 April 2008;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---
II-00688

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Nora Polk <nora.mattek@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:28 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Nora Polk

6405 SE 62nd Ave

Portland, OR 97206
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Defense Contract Audit Agency, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of membership of the Defense Contract Audit Agency Performance Review Boards.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of the members of the Performance Review Boards (PRBs) of the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). The publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The Performance Review Boards provide fair and impartial review of Senior Executive Service (SES) performance appraisals and make recommendations to the Director, DCAA, regarding final performance ratings and performance awards for DCAA SES members.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

June 27, 2001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dale R. Collins, Chief, Human Resources Management Division, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Department of Defense, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6219, 703-767-1236.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following are the names and titles of the executives who have been appointed to serve as members of the DCAA Performance Review Boards. They will serve one-year terms, effective upon publication of this notice.

## Headquarters Performance Review Board

Mr. Larry Uhlfelder, Assistant Director, Policy and Plans, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Chairperson.

Mr. Earl Newman, Assistant Director, Operations, Defense Contract Audit Agency, member.

Mr. Kirk Moberley, General Counsel, Defense Contract Audit Agency, member.

## Regional Performance Review Board

Mr. Frank Summers, Regional Director, Eastern, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Chairperson.

Mr. James Lovelace, Director, Field Detachment, Defense Contract Audit Agency, member.

Mr. Steve Hernandez, Deputy Regional Director, Northeastern, Defense Contract Audit Agency, member.

Dated: June 21, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-16033  Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Notices 34171

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 01–18]

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense

Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

publishing the unclassified text of a

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

This is published to fulfill the

requirements of section 155 of Public

Law 104–164 dated July 21, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604–

6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to

the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, Transmittal 01–18 with

attached transmittal and policy

justification.

Dated: June 21, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternative OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5001–08–M

34172 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Notices 34173

34174 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Notices 34175

34176 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / Notices

[FR Doc. 01–16037 Filed 6–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–08–C
Jan B. HAMILTON, petitioner, v. COLORADO; and Jan Hamilton, petitioner, v. Colorado.

No. 17-6685.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, William Whittle, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of General Gold Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the annual report on Form 10-KSB of General Gold Corporation for the year ended April 30, 2003 (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 General Gold Corporation.

Dated: February 13, 2004

/s/  William WhittleWilliam Whittle
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial 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 General Gold Corporation and will be retained by General Gold Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
BCSE’s proposed language for the preamble regarding Environmental Products:  

The CFTC sought comment on the proposed definition of the term “swap,” specifically on whether the

“forward contract exclusion” in section 1a(47)(B)(ii)  of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), as amended

by the Dodd‐Frank Act, should apply to emissions allowances (“Allowances”), carbon offsets and credits

(“Offsets”), and renewable energy certificates (“RECs”) (collectively, “Environmental Commodities”).   

While derivative transactions with regards to Environmental Commodities fall under the definition of

“swap” in the CEA, physically‐settled forward transactions in Environmental Commodities do not.

Section 1a(47)(B)(ii) of the CEA explicitly states that a “nonfinancial commodity” that is “intended to be

physically settled” should be excluded from the definition of a swap.  Similar to the defining

characteristic of other non‐financial commodities, market participants exchange Environmental

Commodities for a purpose other than the exchange of funds, such as an environmental benefit

ownership claim.  In addition, as with other forward transactions in “traditional” commodities, the

market transfer requires physical settlement.   Under previous CFTC determinations, as well as the

common understanding of the term, the distinguishing characteristic of physical settlement is the

transfer of title; and, when Environmental Commodities are transferred, title is conveyed from the seller

to the buyer.  Nothing in the language of the Dodd‐Frank Act suggests that Congress intended anything

other than this common usage of the term “physical settlement” in crafting the exclusion from swaps for

forward contracts.  Therefore, contracts for physical delivery of Environmental Commodities involve the

sale of a nonfinancial commodity for deferred delivery and are excluded from the definition of a swap.

**********

In addition to the above preamble language, BCSE suggests that in order to ensure that the application

of the forward exclusion is not overly broad and does not create a loophole to avoid swaps regulation, a

clear definition of “physical settlement” would be useful.  Since the term “physical settlement” has not

previously been defined by the CFTC, the Commission could propose the following straightforward

definition, which is consistent with previous Commission consideration of the issue:  “Physical

Settlement is the settling of a contractual obligation through the transfer of title, and the rights inherent

thereto, to the commodity underlying the transaction, from seller to buyer.”
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7823

MICHAEL G. OUTTERBRIDGE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-1541-AM) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 19, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael G. Outterbridge, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) petition as time barred. We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Outterbridge v. Angelone , No. CA-98- 1541-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 3, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Deron BLAND, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 16-6884.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2009141EN.01002802.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 1 April 2009 — Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique

(Case C-119/09)

2009/C 141/49

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Was Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (1) intended to proscribe, in respect of the regulated professions falling within its scope, any general prohibition [on commercial communications], whatever the form of commercial practice concerned, or does it leave the Member States the option of maintaining general prohibitions in respect of certain commercial practices, such as canvassing?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 376, p. 36.

1

---
Phillip C. ELLIS, et ux., petitioners, v. Richard LEMONS, et al.

No. 16-456.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Chris TAFFNER, et ux., petitioners, v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al.

No. 16-6896.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.