alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                      SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN MEDIA, INC.
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUBSIDIARY NAME                                                    STATE OF INCORPORATION
---------------                                                    ----------------------
<S>  <C>                                                           <C>
(1)  American Media Operations, Inc..............................  Delaware
(2)  National Enquirer, Inc......................................  Florida
(3)  Weekly World News, Inc......................................  Florida
(4)  Distribution Services, Inc..................................  Delaware
(5)  SOM Publishing, Inc.........................................  Florida
(6)  NDSI, Inc...................................................  Delaware
(7)  Star Editorial, Inc.........................................  Delaware
(8)  Country Weekly, Inc.........................................  Delaware
</TABLE>
 
                                       38
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4039

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus MANUEL POPOCA-ANSELMO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-03-37-F) Submitted: September 3, 2004 Decided: October 6, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Manuel Popoca-Anselmo appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Popoca-Anselmo’s sole contention on appeal is that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of duress. Popoca-Anselmo asserts that he returned to this country, albeit without permission, to avoid death threats made against him in his native country of Mexico. This court reviews de novo a district court's decision not to instruct a jury on a defendant's theory of a case. United States v. Singh , 54 F.3d 1182, 1189 (4th Cir. 1995). Where there is insufficient evidence, as a matter of law, to support an element of the affirmative defense, the defendant can be precluded from presenting any evidence of duress to the jury. United States v. Sarno , 24 F.3d 618, 621 (4th Cir. 1994). In order to establish a claim of duress, the defendant must show that: (1) he acted under an immediate threat of serious bodily injury; (2) he had a well-grounded belief that the threat would be carried out; and (3) he had no reasonable opportunity to avoid violating the law and the threatened harm. United States v. Bailey , 444 U.S. 394, 410-15 (1980); United States v. King , 879 F.2d 137, 138-39 (4th Cir. 1989). A defendant has the burden of- 3 - establishing sufficient evidence of all three elements of the defense. Bailey , 444 U.S. at 415; Tanner , 941 F.2d at 588. After careful review of the record, we conclude, as the district court found, that Popoca-Anselmo did not avail himself of reasonable opportunities to avoid violating the law and the threatened harm. Bailey, 444 U.S. at 410-15. Accordingly, we find that Popoca-Anselmo has not met his burden, and the district court properly refused to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of duress. Id. ; Singh , 54 F.3d at 1189. We therefore affirm PopocaAnselmo’s conviction and sentence. 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.

AFFIRMED
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3599 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the Internal 

Revenue Service from requiring taxpayers to provide biometric information. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 8 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 3), 2022 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. CRUZ, Ms. ERNST, Mr. 

BRAUN, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Mr. HAWLEY, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit 

the Internal Revenue Service from requiring taxpayers 

to provide biometric information. 

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 ‘‘Ban IRS Biometrics 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TAXPAYER BIOMETRIC INFORMATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 77 of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following new section: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3599 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 7531. TAXPAYER BIOMETRIC INFORMATION. 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall not, as a 

3 condition of filing any return, paying any tax, or receiving 

4 any service provided by the Internal Revenue Service, in5 cluding accessing the taxpayer’s own information, require 

6 any taxpayer to provide biometric information. 

7 ‘‘(b) BIOMETRIC INFORMATION.—For purposes of 

8 this section, the term ‘biometric information’ means infor9 mation regarding any measurable physical characteristic 

10 or personal behavioral trait used to recognize the identity, 

11 or verify the claimed identity or location, of an individual, 

12 including facial images, fingerprints, and iris scans.’’. 

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

14 for chapter 77 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

15 amended by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 7531. Taxpayer biometric information.’’. 

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

17 this section shall apply to filings and transactions in tax18 able years ending on or after December 31, 2021. 

19 (d) SAFE DISPOSAL OF COLLECTED INFORMA20 TION.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the en21 actment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury (or 

22 such Secretary’s delegate), in consultation with the Direc23 tor of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agen24 cy, shall develop a plan for the safe and secure destruction 

25 and disposal of any biometric information (as defined in 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3599 IS

1 section 7531(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 

2 as added by this section) collected or used by the Internal 

3 Revenue Service or any third-party vendor on behalf of 

4 such Service before the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02273]


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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Procurement List; Proposed Deletions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed Deletions from the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to delete services from the 
Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing 
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
    Comments Must Be Received On Or Before: 3/6/2016.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-
4149.
    For Further Information Or To Submit Comments Contact: Barry S. 
Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2a1afb6a7a48786b08785a2a3808b8e8b969bad8c87cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="70333d2435361514221517303112191c1904093f1e155e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide 
interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed 
actions.

Deletions

    The following services are proposed for deletion from the 
Procurement List:

Services:

Service Type: Parts Sorting Service
Service is Mandatory for: Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Bldg 
3, Suite 20, Tinker AFB, OK
Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: NewView Oklahoma, Inc., Oklahoma 
City, OK
Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews 
AFB, MD
Service Type: Packaging Service
Service is Mandatory for: Hurlburt Field Air Force Base, 304 Terry 
Avenue, Hurlburt Field, FL
Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lakeview Center, Inc., Pensacola, FL
Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4417 1 SOCONS LGC, 
Hurlburt Field, FL
Service Type: Preparation of Oil Sample Kits Service
Service is Mandatory for: Pensacola Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL
Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lakeview Center, Inc., Pensacola, FL
Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center Air 
Div, Patuxent River, MD

Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2016-02273 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P


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

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 0.84 1.89 23% 44%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

September 15, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: B1.5. Progressive price indexing (60th percentile) of PIA factors beginning with 

individuals newly eligible for OASDI benefits in 2030: Create a new bend point at the 60th percentile of the 

AIME distribution of newly retired workers. Maintain current-law benefits for earners at the 60th percentile 

and below. Reduce the 32 and 15 percent factors above the 60th percentile such that the initial benefit for 

a worker with AIME equal to the taxable maximum grows by inflation rather than the growth in the SSA 

average wage index.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
#### MURCHISON NATIONAL BANK v. JOHN A. McCORMICK et al.

(Filed 27 May, 1926.)

(For digest see A *o., ante,*42.)

Appeal by defendants from order for compulsory reference, made by *Midyette, J.,*at March Term, 1926, of New HaNoveb. Affirmed.

*45Defendants excepted to the order for compulsory reference, made upon motion of plaintiff, and appealed therefrom to the Supreme Court. Motion for writ of prohibition made in this Court was continued until the call of appeals from the Twentieth District at this term.

*Rountree & Ca/rr and Varser, Lawrence, Proctor & McIntyre for plaintiff.*

*McNeill & ■Hackett, Junius J. Goodwin, J. G. McCormick and Dye & Clark for defendants.*

CoNNoe, J.

This appeal involves the same questions, between the same parties, as those presented in the appeal in No. 291. The notes alleged to have been executed by the Merchants and Farmers Bank of Maxton, set out in the complaint in this action are not the same as those set out in the complaint in the action in which the order for compulsory reference was affirmed in No. 291. Herein is the only difference in the two actions. The orders to which defendants excepted are identical. The appeals are companions and were argued in this Court together. It was conceded that the disposition of one appeal would determine the disposition of the other.

The motion for the writ of prohibition in this action is dismissed. The order for compulsory reference is

Affirmed.
#### STATE v. W. B. DOWLESS.

(Filed 22 May, 1940.)

Indictment § 20: Bills and Notes § lOg—

The indictment charged that defendant issued a worthless check knowing at the time that he did not have sufficient funds or credit for its payment. The proof was that defendant issued a cheek of a corporation of which he was an executive officer, and that the corporation did not have sufficient funds or credit for its payment. *Sold:*There is a fatal variance between allegation and proof, and defendant’s motion to nonsuit should have been allowed.

Appeal by defendant from *Sinclair, Emergency Judge,*at March Term, 1940, of RobesoN.

Reversed.

The defendant was charged with issuing a worthless check, in violation of ch. 62, Public Laws 1921 (Michie’s Code, sec. 4283 [a]).

The warrant charged that the defendant, with intent to defraud, “did issue and deliver to this affiant (O. K. Kittrell) a worthless check in amount of $211.79 . . ., defendant knowing at the time of issuing and delivering said check that he did not have sufficient funds or neces*590sary credit arrangements with said bank whereby said check would be paid.”

The check offered in evidence, and relied on by the State, was as follows:

Whiteville, N. C., 7/24/1939.

WACCAMAW BANK & TRUST COMPANY.

Pay to order of O. K. Kittrell $211.79. Two Hundred and Eleven and 79/100 Dollars. For Tob. barn furnaces.

The Dowless Tobacco Curer, Incorporated.

*By*W. B. Dowless, *Pres. ■& Secy-Treas.*

Defendant’s motion for judgment of nonsuit was denied. Verdict— guilty. From judgment imposing sentence, defendant appealed.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Atiorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.*

*II. II. Clark and Edward B. Clark for defendant.*

Devin, J.

The defendant assigns as error the ruling of the court below denying his motion for judgment of nonsuit.

The warrant, upon which the defendant was tried and convicted, charged that defendant W. B. Dowless did issue and deliver a worthless check, knowing that he did not have sufficient funds or credit with the bank with which to pay same, whereas the proof shows a-check issued by a corporation of which defendant Dowless was executive head, together with oral evidence that the corporation did not have sufficient funds or credit with the bank to pay same.

While the terms of the statute (Public Laws 1927, ch. 62) are broad enough to cover the utterance and delivery of the check of a corporation by an officer thereof with knowledge of the falsity of the check and the insufficiency of the funds or credit of the maker, here the charge is .that W. B. Dowless, individually, .issued the check with knowledge that he (Dowless) did not have sufficient funds or credit with the bank to pay the check. The proof does not conform to the charge contained in the warrant. There is a variance between allegation and proof. *S. v. Franklin,*204 N. C., 157, 167 S. E., 569; *S. v. Corpening,*191 N. C., 751, 133 S. E., 14; *S. v. Harbert,*185 N. C., 760, 118 S. E., 6.

We conclude that, on this record, the defendant’s motion for judgment of nonsuit should have been allowed.

Reversed.
#### Albert W Fuller and another, Respondents, v. Catharine E. Craig, Appellant.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, referee discharged, costs to abide event, unless plaintiffs consent to deduct $250 from recovery, and if they so consent judgment affirmed, without costs of appeal. Opinions by

Bockes, J.,

and Learned, P J., dissenting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000880114
<NAME> BELDEN & BLAKE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,536
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,301
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,106
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,103
<PP&E>                                         580,950
<DEPRECIATION>                                 280,047
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 350,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           78,135
<BONDS>                                        303,731
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,026
<OTHER-SE>                                    (52,616)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   350,695
<SALES>                                        130,742
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,738
<CGS>                                           72,194
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,724
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,302
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,482)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,179)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,303)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,303)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12068

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-03591-TWT

JC&C INCORPORATED,

a Georgia corporation,

LAWRENCE JAMES HELFRICH, 

a natural person, 

JEANNE MARIE HELFRICH, 

a natural person, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

PEERLESS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

a foreign insurance company, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(December 17, 2013)

Case: 13-12068 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Before TJOFLAT, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

This is a suit on a fire insurance policy. The insurance company, Peerless, 

denied coverage on the grounds, among others, that plaintiffs, JC&C and James 

and Jeanne Marie Helfrich, made material misrepresentations and failed to produce 

requested documents, thereby voiding the policy’s coverage. 

Following discovery, Peerless moved the District Court for summary 

judgment. The court granted the motion and gave Peerless judgment. Plaintiffs 

now appeal arguing that material issues of fact precluded summary judgment. The 

District Court rejected their argument, and we do as well.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-12068 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3272]



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

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for 
Review

    The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) submitted the 
following public information collection requirements to OMB for review 
and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). Comments regarding these information collections should be 
addressed to the OMB reviewer listed at the end of the entry. Comments 
may also be addressed to, and copies of the submissions obtained from 
the Records Management Officer, Renee Poehls, (202) 736-4743, M/AS/ISS, 
Room 930B, N.S., Washington, DC 20523.
    Date Submitted: January 27, 1995.
    Submitting Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development.
    OMB Number: None.
    Form Number: None.
    Type of Submission: Existing collection in use without OMB Control 
Number.
    Title: Agency for International Development Acquisition Regulations 
(AIDAR) Clause 752.70.26.
    Purpose: Section 635(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961 
authorizes USAID to contract with any corporation, international 
organization, or other body or persons in or out of the United States 
in furtherance of the purposes and within the limitations of the FAA. 
USAID presently administers some 500 contracts for technical services 
with total estimated costs of approximately $10 billion dollars. To 
determine how well contractors are performing to meet the requirements 
of the contract, USAID requires periodic performance reports from 
contractors. The performance reporting requirements are contained in 
the USAID Acquisition Regulations (AIDAR) clause 752.70.26. USAID has 
recently revised this clause to be responsive to the National 
Performance Review's (NPR) procurement reform agenda which emphasizes 
outputs over inputs. Whereas the reports required by the AIDAR clause 
focused on the process and compliance with regulations, it now focuses 
on performance and progress toward meeting contract objectives.
    Annual Reporting Burden: Respondents: 250, Annual responses: 1000; 
Annual burden hours: 4000.
    Reviewer: Jeffery Hill (202) 395-7340, Office of Management and 
Budget, Room 3201, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: February 27, 1995.
Genease E. Pettigrew,
Chief, Information Support Services Division, Office of Administrative 
Services, Bureau for Management.
[FR Doc. 95-3272 Filed 2-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
#### Lydia M. Ballon, Respondent, v. Isaac Purqua, Appellant.

Judgment reversed on payment by defendant of costs of trial and appeal, otherwise affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bockes, J.