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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4054 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4054

  To terminate General License No. 8A of the Office of Foreign Assets 
 Control of the Department of the Treasury and require the application 
   of sanctions under Executive Order 14024 to the Russian financial 
             institutions listed in General License No. 8A.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 7, 2022

    Mr. Marshall (for himself, Mr. Braun, and Mr. Scott of Florida) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
            Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To terminate General License No. 8A of the Office of Foreign Assets 
 Control of the Department of the Treasury and require the application 
   of sanctions under Executive Order 14024 to the Russian financial 
             institutions listed in General License No. 8A.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF GENERAL LICENSE NO. 8A OF OFFICE OF FOREIGN 
              ASSETS CONTROL; APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS TO CERTAIN 
              RUSSIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

    Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act--
            (1) General License No. 8A of the Office of Foreign Assets 
        Control of the Department of the Treasury shall have no force 
        or effect; and
            (2) sanctions imposed under Executive Order 14024 (50 
        U.S.C. 1701 note; relating to blocking property with respect to 
        specified harmful foreign activities of the Government of the 
        Russian Federation) shall apply with respect to each entity 
        specified in General License No. 8A.
                                 <all>
```
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20515 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CALVIN ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-29-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - February 11, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. *
PER CURIAM: ** Calvin Alexander argues that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that it lacked the authority to depart downward in imposing his sentence. We have reviewed the record, including the briefs of the parties, and find that we do not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of Alexander’s motion to depart downwardNo. 98-20515 -2- at sentencing. The district court denied the motion based on its

determination that a departure is not warranted under the facts of the case. Its decision was not based on the mistaken belief that it did not have the authority to depart downward. Therefore, the district court’s decision is not subject to review. See United States v. Palmer , 122 F.3d 215, 222 (5th Cir. 1997). The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. DiMarco , 46 F.3d 476, 478 (5th Cir. 1995). APPEAL DISMISSED.
<PAGE>

                        INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement 
No. 333-10513 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 33-71798, 33-99722 
and 33-93914 on Form S-3 of Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated 
January 20, 1997, incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 
10-K/A of Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Diego, California
March 24, 1997
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
listed below of our report dated October 27, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Access Health, Inc. included
in this annual report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 1997:
 
    Form S-3 (No. 333-21423)
 
    Form S-4 (No. 333-1393)
 
    Form S-8 (No. 333-18163), pertaining to the 1989 Incentive Stock Plan, the
Supplemental Stock Plan, and the Informed Access Systems, Inc. Stock Option
Plan.
 
    Form S-8 (No. 333-24561), pertaining to Access Health, Inc. Non-Qualified
Stock Option Agreements.
 
                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Sacramento, California
December 15, 1997
#### BANK OF MONTGOMERY and GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks, v. S. Q. McCRAW, C. C. HOWELL and UNION INDEMNITY COMPANY.

(Filed 14 December, 1932.)

Appeal and Error A d — Appeal from order joining party upon finding that he was proper party to action held premature.

An appeal from an order of the trial court that a party be joined as a defendant upon a finding that such party was a proper and necessary party to the action will be dismissed as premature.

Appeal by plaintiff, Gurney P. Hood, Commissioner of Banks, and defendant Union Indemnity Company, from *Finley, J.,*at September Term, 1932, of Montgomeey.

Appeal dismissed.

On motion of the defendant, C. C. Howell, it appearing to the court that Union Indemnity Company was a proper and necessary party to this action, it was ordered by the court that said Union Indemnity Company be made a party defendant, with leave to the defendant, C. C. Howell, and the said Union Indemnity Company to file pleadings.

Prom said order both the plaintiff, Gurney P. Hood, Commissioner of Banks, and the defendant, Union Indemnity Company, appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Armstrong & Armstrong for plaintiff, Gurney P. Hood, Commissioner.*

*G. II. Gover for defendant, Union Indemnity Company.*

*861Per, Curiam.

Tbe order that the Union Indemnity Company be made a party defendant in this action, upon the facts found by Judge Finley, is not reviewable by this Court at this time. The appeal is dismissed for that same is premature. *Spruill v. Bank,*163 N. C., 43, 19 S. E., 262.

Appeal dismissed.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  
  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration Statements of Aethlon Medical, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-168483, 333-168481, 333-164939, 333-160532, 333-145290, 333-127911, 333-114017 and 333-49896) of our report, dated July 14, 2011 on the consolidated financial statements of Aethlon Medical, Inc. and Subsidiary as of March 31, 2011 and 2010 and for each of the two years in the two year period ended March 31, 2011 and the period January 31, 2004 (inception) through March 31, 2011 (which includes an explanatory paragraph expressing substantial doubt as to the Company's ability to continue as a going concern) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Aethlon Medical, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2011.
   /s/ Squar, Milner, Peterson, Miranda & Williamson, LLP
  San Diego, California
 July 14, 2011
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

-2.00% -4.34% 1.10% 3.42% -0.90% -0.92%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

August 26, 2009

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Progressive price indexing of PIA formula factors beginning with individuals newly 

eligible for OASI benefits in 2017. Create new bend point at the 30th percentile of earners. Maintain 

current-law benefits for earners at the 30th percentile and below and reduce upper 2 formula factors 

(32% and 15%) such that maximum worker benefit grows by inflation rather than the growth in average 

wages. Disability benefits are not affected by the proposal. Disabled worker beneficiaries, upon attaining 

normal retirement age, would be subject to a proportional reduction in benefits based on the worker's 

years of disability.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Present law With this provision
**Exhibit
10.6**
 **OPTION
AGREEMENT**
 
 
 This
Option Agreement evidences the grant of a stock option (the "Option") to
purchase shares of common stock, par value $.001 (the "Company Stock"), of
Generex Biotechnology Corporation (the "Company") granted to **John
Barratt** (the
"Optionee") pursuant to the Generex Biotechnology Corporation 2001 Stock Option
Plan (the “Plan”), a copy of which is attached to this Option Agreement and
incorporated into this Option Agreement by reference. The Option is subject to
the terms, conditions, limitations and restrictions set forth in the Plan,
including the following:
 
 a.  The date
of grant of the Option is **April
5, 2005** and the
number of shares of Company Stock that may be purchased upon exercise of the
Option is **35,714
(Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen )** .
 
 b.  The
purchase price (the “Exercise Price”) of Company Stock subject to the Option is
 **$0.001** per
share.
 
 c.  The
Option is fully vested upon issuance.
 
 d.  Unless
sooner terminated pursuant to the Plan, the Option shall terminate on **April
4, 2010.** Option
will survive the termination of the Optionee’s employment.
 
 e.  The
Optionee shall pay the Exercise Price for the Option (i) in cash or (ii) by such
other method as may be approved by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s
Board of Directors. The Optionee shall pay the amount of any withholding tax due
at the time of exercise, as provided in the Plan.
 
 f.  The
rights and interests of the Optionee under this Option Agreement may not be
sold, assigned, encumbered or otherwise transferred, except, in the event of the
death of the Optionee, by will or by the laws of descent and
distribution.
 
 g.  Any
notice to the Company, including notice of exercise of an Option, shall be
addressed to the Company in care of Slava Jarnitskii at the Company’s principal
offices.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Option Agreement has been executed on behalf of the
Company by a duly authorized officer and by the Optionee effective as of the
date of grant of the Option.


GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY
      CORPORATION
    
    
    ACCEPTED AND AGREED:By:
    /s/ Rose C. Perri
    
    
    /s/
      John BarrattROSE C. PERRI
    
    
    John
Barratt
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEE GORDON LAMB,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

JERI TAYLOR; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35847

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00909-MC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018** 

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges

Lee Gordon Lamb, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth

Amendment and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

FILED

JUL 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review de novo, Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013), and

we affirm. 

 The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lamb’s Eighth

Amendment failure-to-protect claim because Lamb failed to raise a genuine dispute

of material fact as to whether allowing supervised interaction with Lamb’s

assailant posed an objectively substantial risk of harm or whether defendants knew

of and disregarded that risk. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)

(“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for

[failing to protect an inmate] unless the official knows of and disregards an

excessive risk to inmate health or safety.”). 

The district court properly dismissed Lamb’s state law claims against

defendants in their official capacities because these claims for damages are barred

by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Sato v. Orange Cty. Dep’t of Educ., 861

F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review); Brown v. Or. Dep’t of Corr.,

751 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 2014). To the extent that Lamb seeks injunctive relief

for these state law claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v.

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law

claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered . . . will

2 16-35847
point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.”); Brown

v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 246 F.3d 1182, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review). 

AFFIRMED.

3 16-35847
Exhibit 32

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 EBS Building, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-QSB
for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission)
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith F. Cooper, Senior Managing Director of the Manager of the
Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations
of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Commission or its staff upon request.

| | /s/ Keith F. Cooper                                                                                      
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Keith F. Cooper, Senior Managing Director
FTI Consulting, as Manager EBS Building, L.L.C.
August 14, 2003
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-10506

BizRight LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60018

Summary Calendar

 

ZOLTAN SZABO,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent..

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals

USDC No. A70-802-521

- - - - - - - - - -

November 17, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Zoltan Szabo, an ethnic Hungarian who is a native and citizen

of Romania, has petitioned this court to review the Board of

Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) determination that he should be

deported. We DENY Szabo’s petition. The BIA’s decision was

supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on

the record considered as a whole.” Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78

F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). 
No. 98-60018

-2-

Assuming Szabo has established that he was previously

persecuted in Romania, State Department documents introduced in

Szabo’s immigration proceedings were sufficient to overcome the

presumption that he has a reasonable fear of present or future

persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i); Vaduva v. INS, 131

F.3d 689, 691-92 (7th Cir. 1997). The BIA did not err in

determining that Szabo was not entitled to asylum under the

doctrine articulated in Matter of Chen, 20 I&N Dec. 16 (BIA April

25, 1989), and its factual determinations in ruling on this matter

were supported by substantial evidence. See Rivera-Cruz v. INS,

948 F.2d 962, 969 (5th Cir. 1991).

PETITION DENIED.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1047

Weastec, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-401]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3; 50-425-OLA-3; Re: License Amendment 
(Transfer to Southern Nuclear) ASLBP No. 96-671-01-OLA-3]


Georgia Power Company, et al. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 
Units 1 and 2); Evidentiary Hearing,

January 3, 1995.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.752, a public evidentiary hearing will begin 
at 1 pm, January 9, 1995, and continue to the 14th in Courtrooms 810 
and 812 in the Russell Building, 75 Spring Street, NW., Atlanta, 
Georgia.
    This hearing began on January 4, 1994, in Rockville, Maryland. Its 
purpose is to receive evidence concerning alleged misrepresentations 
about an alleged illegal transfer of operating authority for the Vogtle 
Plant.

    For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Peter B. Bloch,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 95-401 Filed 1-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

[KPMG LETTERHEAD]



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Corvas International, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-45607 and 333-41784) on Forms S-8, as amended, and (Nos. 333-87339, 333-91365
and 333-47050) on Forms S-3, as amended, of Corvas International, Inc. of our
report dated January 31, 2003, except for Note 13, which is as of February 25,
2003, relating to the balance sheets of Corvas International, Inc. as of
December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002
annual report on Form 10-K of Corvas International, Inc. We also consent to the
reference to our firm under the heading "Selected Financial Data" in the
December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K.


                                                          /s/  KPMG LLP



San Diego, California
March 12, 2003