alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Justice
 On February 2, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of Utah in the lawsuit entitled 
                    *United States and State of Utah*
                     v. 
                    *Salt Lake County, Utah,*
                     Civil Action No. 2:16cv87BCW. The United States filed this lawsuit under the Clean Water Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties. The complaint alleges that the defendant violated the Clean Water Act by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit, issued to the County for discharges of storm water from the County's municipal separate storm sewer system (“MS4”). The consent decree requires the defendant to perform injunctive relief to bring it into compliance with its NPDES permit and to pay a $280,000 civil penalty. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to 
                    *United States and State of Utah*
                     v. 
                    *Salt Lake County, Utah,*
                     D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-10984. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: To submit comments:
Send them to:By e-mail
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov*.By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: 
                    *http://www.justice.gov/​enrd/​consent-decrees.*
                     We will provide a paper copy of the consent decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $11.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Robert Brook, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2016-02474 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3895 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3895

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To extend and authorize annual appropriations for the United States 
Commission on International Religious Freedom through fiscal year 2024.

    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 ``United States Commission on 
International Religious Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

    (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 207(a) of the 
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6435(a)) is 
amended by striking ``2019 through 2022'' and inserting ``2023 and 
2024''.
    (b) Extension of Authorization.--Section 209 of the International 
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6436) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2022'' and inserting ``September 30, 2024''.

            Passed the Senate July 20, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3895

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To extend and authorize annual appropriations for the United States 
Commission on International Religious Freedom through fiscal year 2024.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5084]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Information Collection Submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposal for the collection of information listed below has 
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35). Copies of the proposed collection of information and related form 
and explanatory material may be obtained by contacting the Bureau's 
clearance officer at the phone number listed below. Comments and 
suggestions on the requirements should be made directly to the bureau 
clearance officer and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork 
Reduction Project (1029-0080), Washington, D.C. 20503, telephone 202-
395-7340.

Title: Training, Examination, and Certification of Blasters
OMB Number: 1029-0080
Abstract: Sections 515(b)(15)(D) and 719 of Pub. L. 95-87 require that 
all blasting operations be conducted by trained and competent persons 
as certified by the regulatory authority. The regulations provide for 
the training, examination, and certification of persons engaging in 
blasting or the use of explosives in surface coal mining operations. 
The information collected is used to determine the adequacy of State 
blasting programs
Bureau Form Number: Not applicable.
Frequency: One-time requirement
Descriptions of Respondents: State Regulatory Authorities
Estimated Completion Time: 1 hour
Annual Responses: 1 hour
Annual Reporting Burden: 1 hour
Bureau Clearance Officer: John A. Trelease, (202) 343-1475.

    Dated: January 27, 1995.
Andrew F. DeVito,
Chief, Branch of Environmental and Economic Analysis.
[FR Doc. 95-5084 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Retirement Age

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						C2.1: Increase the earliest eligibility age (EEA) by 2 months per year for those age 62 starting in 2025 and ending in 2042 (EEA reaches 65 for those age 62 in 2042).**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
Fifth Season International Inc.: Exhibit 10.14 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.14

Entrusted Loan Agreement



	Main contents: 



	Contract No.: (2011) Lu Zi Yin Wei Dai Zi No.000838
  
	Principal: Shandong Shengli Steel Co., Ltd.
  
	Loan Amount (RMB): 300 million RMB Yuan
  
	Purpose of the Loan: working capital of the Company.
  
	Contract Term: January 28, 2011 to January 27, 2012
  
	Interest Rate: fixed annual rate of 15.000002%
  
	Ways of guarantee: nil
  
	Fee Bearing: Borrower bears the relevant fees under the agreement.
  
	Prepayment of the Loan: Lender’s consent should be obtained if
  Borrower is willing to prepay the loan.
  
	Liabilities of Breach of Contract: Damages; withdrawal of loan,
  prepayment of principal and interest before maturity; imposition of compound
  interest. 




	Headlines of the articles omitted 



	Miscellaneous
  
	Dispute settlement
  
	Effectiveness
  
	Validity
  
	Attention 









Signature Page 



Party A: Shandong the Fifth Season Commercial Investment Co., Ltd. 

Representative: Hongsen Xu 

By: /seal/ Shandong the Fifth Season Commercial Investment Co., Ltd. 

/s/ Hongsen Xu 

Date: January 28, 2011 



Party B: China CITIC Bank, Zibo Branch 

Representative: Shaohua Zhang 

Title: Legal Representative 

By: /seal/ China CITIC Bank, Zibo Branch 

/s/ Shaohua Zhang 

Date: January 28, 2011
#### BEMIS LUMBER COMPANY v. G. H. COPE, Doing Business as COPE LUMBER AND DIMENSION COMPANY.

(Filed 19 December, 1930.)

Appeal by defendant from *Finley, J.,*at March Term, 1930, of Gkaham.

No error.

This 'is an action to recover the balance due for lumber sold and delivered by plaintiff to the defendant, G. H. Cope.

Defendant denies that he is liable for the amount due to the plaintiff. He alleges that the lumber was purchased by him as president of the G. H. Cope Lumber and Dimension Company, a corporation, and that said lumber was shipped by plaintiff to said corporation.

*796Tbe issue submitted to tbe jury was answered as follows:

“In wbat sum, if any, is tbe defendant indebted to tbe plaintiff? Answer: $1,107.88.”

From judgment on tbe verdict defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

*R. L. Phillips for plaintiff.*

*Moody & Moody for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

There was evidence at tbe trial of tbis action tending to show that tbe defendant, 0. H. Cope, purchased tbe lumber shipped by plaintiff to tbe *Q.*H. Cope Lumber and Dimension Company, on bis personal credit, and not on tbe credit of tbe corporation. Tbis evidence, together with tbe evidence offered by tbe defendant tending to show tbe contrary, was submitted to tbe jury, under a charge which was free from error. As neither’ of defendant’s assignments of error on bis appeal to tbis Court can be sustained, tbe judgment must be affirmed.

No error.
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Focal Communications (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kathleen Perone,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 1350,
as adopted pursuant to $ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1) 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Kathleen Perone

Kathleen Perone
Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2002
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Coverage of Employment or Earnings, or Inclusion of Other Sources of Revenue

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						F8: For active S-corporation officers and limited partners, apply a 16.2 percent tax on investment income as defined in the ACA, with unindexed thresholds as in the ACA ($200,000 single filer, $250,000 for married filing joint), starting in 2024. Proceeds go to the OASDI Trust Funds for tax attributable to 12.4 percent of the total 16.2 percent tax rate.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4816]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. RP88-262-030 and RP88-88-006]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Refund Report

February 22, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 17, 1995, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle), tendered for filing its Refund Report made 
pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the Stipulation and Agreement 
(Settlement) dated September 26, 1994 in the above docket. Such 
Settlement was approved by the Commission on December 7, 1994.
    Panhandle states that the Summary of Settlement Refund Amounts by 
Customer filed herewith sets forth Panhandle's refund obligation for 
Sponsoring Parties and Subject Parties for the Docket No. RP88-262-000 
Rate Period (April 1, 1989 through March 31, 1992) and that payments to 
Sponsoring Parties and Subject Parties were made on February 3, 1995.
    Panhandle states that a copy of the information filed with its 
report has previously been sent to affected customers and respective 
state regulatory agencies and that each customer has received its 
detail of interest calculations. Panhandle also states that a copy of 
the transmittal letter and summary of Settlement Refund Amounts 
submitted with this filing have been served on all affected customers 
and respective State Regulatory Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest the said filing should file a 
protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North 
Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 
385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 
protests should be filed on or before March 3, 1995. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4816 Filed 2-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4587]




[[Page 10471]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VIII





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Bureau of Indian Affairs



_______________________________________________________________________



Indian Gaming; Klamath Tribe, State of Oregon; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / 
Notices 
[[Page 10472]] 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

ACTION: Notice of Approved Tribal-State Compact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2710, of the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-497), the Secretary of the Interior shall 
publish, in the Federal Register, notice of approved Tribal-State 
Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III (casino) gambling on 
Indian reservations. The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, through her delegated authority, has 
approved the Tribal-State Compact Between the Klamath Tribes and the 
State of Oregon, which was executed on December 16, 1994.

DATES: This action is effective upon date of publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Indian 
Gaming Management Staff, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. 
20240. (202) 219-4068.

    Dated: February 13, 1995.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-4587 Filed 2-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus REGINALD TODD BRIGGS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-01-291) Submitted: May 26, 2006 Decided: June 9, 2006 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Following a hearing at which Reginald Todd Briggs admitted to violating conditions of his supervised release, the district court revoked Briggs’ release and imposed an eight-monthsentence, to be followed by a supervised release term of fortyseven months. Briggs appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 367 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but asserting that the sentence is erroneous. Briggs was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not file such a brief. We affirm. In accordance with United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court should determine the sentencing range under the sentencing guidelines, consider the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), and impose a reasonable sentence within the statutory maximum. SeeUnited States v. Hughes , 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). “A sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range . . . is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Green , 436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Under these principles, we conclude that Briggs’ sentence, which falls below the statutory maximum and within the properly calculated guideline range, is reasonable.- 3 - In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel to inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Order entered May 22 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 12

- 01 599

- CV

VICTOR MALDONADO , Appellant

V.

SUMEER HOMES, INC., PALMER DRYWALL, LLC, AND ISC BUILDING MATERIALS, INC. , Appellee s



### ORDER

The Court GRANTS a ppellant’s May 1 7 , 2013 unopposed motion for extension of time

to file letter brief regarding jurisdiction and ORDERS appellant ’s letter brief filed concurrently

with the motion filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2177

JOHN MERRITT JAMES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District

Judge. (CA-97-723)

Submitted: February 9, 1999 Decided: March 22, 1999

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Merritt James, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Merritt James appeals from the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to the Defendant on his action seeking to

recover a relocation allowance in connection with his job transfer.

Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. James v. United States Dep’t of Labor, No. CA97-723 (S.D.W. Va. July 21, 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.

AFFIRMED
1

The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1269

___________

Teresa Polite, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Arkansas Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 4, 2010

Filed: January 12, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Teresa Polite appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal without prejudice of her

civil rights action for failure to comply with a court order. Upon careful review, we

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), 41(b); Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 990 (8th Cir. 2005)

(per curiam) (Rule 41(b) dismissal); Hairston v. Alert Safety Light Prods., Inc., 307

F.3d 717, 718-19 (8th Cir. 2002) (Rule 37(b) dismissal). We also decline to consider
-2-

the arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40272 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. M ART I N PADI LLA D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 03- C R
- 216- 1
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d S T E W A R T an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * I n O c t obe r2003, M ar t i n P adi l l a, fede r alpr i son er # 19691- 179, w as c o n v ic te d b yju r yv e r d ic t o f p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t t o d is tr ib u t e a n a m o u n t in excess of

f ive kil ogram s of

coc ai n e an d w as sentenced to 121 m on t h s of i mp r i s o n me n ta n d f

iv e y e a r s o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . I n F e b r u a r y2 0 0 8 , a ta t i me w h en he h ad no acti on s pen di n g, P ad i l l a f i l ed a m ot i on requesti n g produ ct i on of t he g r andj ur y t e s t i m o ny f r o m hi s c r i m i nalc as e . Pa di l l a has no tpr o vi de d a v a lid ju r is d ic tio n a l b a s is fo rh is m o tio n . Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Car v aj al , 989 F. 2d United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 13, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40272

2 17 0, 1 70 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 3)
. Eve n i f i t i s as s um e d t hata j ur i s di c t i o nalb as i s f o rt he m o tio n e x is ts , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r lyd e n ie d th a t m o tio n b e c a u s e P a d illa fa ile d to s h o w a p a r tic u la r iz e d n e e d fo r th e g r a n d ju r ytr a n s c r ip ts . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v . Mira m o n t ez , 9 9 5 F .2 d 5 6 , 5 9 -6 0 (5 t h C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.