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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1441 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1441

 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide an exemption 
            to States which adopt certain minimum wage laws.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

 Mr. DeMint (for himself, Mr. Stenholm, and Mr. Armey) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide an exemption 
            to States which adopt certain minimum wage laws.

    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 ``Minimum Wage State Flexibility Act 
of 2001''.

SEC. 2. STATE MINIMUM WAGE.

    Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h)(1) An employer in a State that adopts minimum wage 
legislation that conforms to the requirement of paragraph (2) shall not 
be required to pay its employees at the minimum wage prescribed by 
subsection (a)(1).
    ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply in a State that adopts minimum wage 
legislation that--
            ``(A) sets a rate or rates that are not less than $5.15 an 
        hour; and
            ``(B) applies that rate or those rates to not fewer than 
        the employees performing work within the State that would 
        otherwise be covered by the minimum wage rate prescribed by 
        subsection (a)(1).''.
                                 <all>
```
*

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1344

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Minnesota.

Jorge Leyva, also known as Jorge *

Leyva Hernandez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2006

Filed: March 13, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jorge Leyva appeals the 90-month prison sentence the district court*

 imposed

after Leyva pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge. On appeal, counsel has

moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967).
-2-

Construing the Anders brief as raising a challenge to the denial of a minor-role

reduction under the advisory Guidelines, the argument fails. Leyva admittedly helped

his co-conspirators hide a large quantity of drugs in the bumper of a car in which one

of his co-conspirators transported the drugs for distribution. We conclude the district

court's finding that Leyva’s role in the drug conspiracy was not minor compared to his

co-conspirators is not clearly erroneous. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) & comment (n.5)

(minor participant is one “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose

role could not be described as minimal”); United States v. Johnson, 408 F.3d 535,

538-39 (8th Cir. 2005) (propriety of § 3B1.2 adjustment is determined by comparing

acts of each participant in relation to relevant conduct for which participant is held

accountable and by measuring each participant’s individual acts and relative

culpability against elements of offense); United States v. Bustos-Torres, 396 F.3d 935,

947-48 (8th Cir.) (district court’s factual determination of defendant’s role in offense

may be reversed only if it is clearly erroneous, and it is defendant’s burden to prove

role reduction is warranted), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2557 (2005) and 126 S. Ct. 203

(2005); United States v. Belitz, 141 F.3d 815, 818-19 (8th Cir. 1998) (defendant’s

voluntary and knowing storage of substantial amount of drugs was sufficient to

preclude minor-role decrease).

Having carefully reviewed the record and finding no nonfrivolous issues, we

affirm the district court’s judgment, and grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________
39

C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans1estate loans estate loans

 Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2001: Q1... 9.7 9.6 9.1

 Q2... 9.3 9.1 8.5

 Q3... 8.8 8.7 8.1

 Q4... 7.9 7.7 7.2

2002: Q1... 7.4 7.5 7.0

 Q2... 7.2 7.2 6.8

 Q3... 6.8 6.7 6.4

 Q4... 6.7 6.6 6.3

2003: Q1... 6.5 6.4 6.1

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2001: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a.

2002: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q2... 7.7 7.6 7.1

 Q3... 7.5 7.4 6.9

 Q4... 7.2 7.0 6.6

2003: Q1... 9.7 6.9 6.4

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and

feeding of livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
9

A.5. Average Effective Interest Rates on Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1992...... 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.8 9.3 6.3 9.7 9.3 8.8 7.1 1993...... 7.5 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.7 6.2 9.0 8.7 8.3 6.9 1994...... 7.8 8.3 8.0 8.4 8.6 7.0 9.1 8.8 8.6 7.3 1995...... 9.5 10.1 10.2 10.0 10.3 8.8 10.6 10.5 10.3 9.0 1996...... 8.4 8.8 9.5 8.6 9.7 8.0 10.2 10.1 9.8 7.8 1997...... 9.2 9.6 9.8 9.9 9.8 8.5 10.2 10.0 9.9 8.8 1998...... 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.3 8.0 10.1 9.9 9.7 8.4 1999...... 8.7 9.1 9.1 9.2 8.8 7.6 9.7 9.5 9.3 8.1 2000...... 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.3 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.4 2001...... 7.8 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.3 7.0 9.1 8.7 8.3 7.3 2002...... 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.7 4.8 7.3 7.0 6.5 5.3 2003...... 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 4.6 6.7 6.4 5.9 4.8 2000: Q3... 10.2 10.4 10.2 10.3 10.1 9.6 10.7 10.7 10.4 9.8  Q4... 10.0 10.0 10.3 10.3 10.3 9.4 10.6 10.5 10.3 9.7 2001: Q1... 9.1 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.2 8.3 10.1 9.8 9.6 8.7  Q2... 8.3 8.3 8.6 8.6 8.1 7.8 9.2 8.9 8.6 7.9  Q3... 7.7 7.8 7.5 8.1 8.2 6.9 8.9 8.5 8.0 7.1  Q4... 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.8 7.4 5.3 7.9 7.4 6.8 5.5 2002: Q1... 6.3 6.5 5.6 6.8 6.7 5.2 7.6 7.2 6.7 5.7  Q2... 6.2 6.1 6.3 6.4 7.1 5.3 7.2 6.9 6.4 5.6  Q3... 5.7 6.3 6.1 6.0 6.3 4.7 7.3 7.0 6.5 4.9  Q4... 5.5 5.6 5.4 6.2 7.2 4.2 7.1 6.7 6.2 4.8 2003: Q1... 5.6 5.3 5.2 6.0 6.2 4.8 6.8 6.5 6.1 5.2  Q2... 5.9 5.6 5.7 6.4 6.2 4.9 6.8 6.6 6.3 5.4  Q3... 5.2 4.8 5.6 5.4 6.0 4.4 6.5 6.2 5.6 4.6  Q4... 5.0 4.7 5.4 5.2 5.6 4.4 6.4 6.2 5.7 4.2 2004: Q1... 5.3 5.1 5.9 5.6 5.5 4.6 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.0  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Effective (compoundcalculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Quarterly estimates are expressed as an annual loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Derek Potocki

v. No. 07-fp-71

Strafford County Department of Corrections,

Superintendent, et al.

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee.

This case has been assigned civil number 07-cv-71-SM.

SO ORDERED.

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 28, 2007

cc: Derek Potocki, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00071-SM Document 5 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 1
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1454V

UNPUBLISHED

LISA SCHWARTZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: November 20, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On September 21, 2018, Lisa Schwartz filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) 

resulting from the influenza vaccine she received on September 28, 2015. Petition at 1, 

¶¶ 1, 3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special 

Masters.

On November 19, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) 

Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent indicates that “[i]t is [his] position that [P]etitioner 

has satisfied the criteria set forth in the recently revised Vaccine Table Injury (“Table”) 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”), which afford[s] [P]etitioner a 

presumption of causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and forty-two days 

after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause.” Id. at 9-10. 

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
29

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures

Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total

1982...... 2 3 3 3 11

1983...... 1 1 2 3 7

1984...... 3 7 10 12 32

1985...... 12 21 17 18 68

1986...... 14 14 21 16 65

1987...... 22 19 12 16 69

1988...... 11 6 12 7 36

1989...... 5 7 5 5 22

1990...... 3 5 6 3 17

1991...... 2 2 3 1 8

1992...... 1 1 1 4 7

1993...... 1 2 2 0 5

1994...... 0 0 0 0 0

1995...... 0 0 0 0 0

1996...... 0 2 0 0 2

1997...... 0 0 0 1 1

1998...... 0 0 1 0 1

1999...... 0 1 0 0 1

2000...... 0 0 0 0 0

2001...... 0 0 0 0 0

2002...... 1 0 0 1 2

2003...... 0 1 0 n.a. n.a.

 Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure. Industrial banks and

mutual savings banks also are excluded. Agricultural banks are defined in

the introduction to section B.

 n.a. Not available.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-30-PB

Danielle Rhodes, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for October 7, 2008, citing the need for

additional time to allow defendant to complete a psychiatric

evaluation prior to trial. The government and co-defendants do 

not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from October 7, 2008 to January 6, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00030-PB Document 42 Filed 09/29/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The September 23, 2008 final pretrial conference is

continued to December 18, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 29, 2008

cc: James Gleason, Esq.

Richard Monteith, Esq.

Lawrence Vogelman, Esq.

Mark Machera, Esq.

Neil Faigel, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00030-PB Document 42 Filed 09/29/08 Page 2 of 2
#### WALKER v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. et al.

No. 3104.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 19, 1949.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1949.

A. B. Guthrie, Ruston, for appellant.

Allen R. Fontenot, New Orleans, for appellees.

ELLIS, Judge.

It is only necessary that we discuss the quantum in this case, all other issues having been decided in the case of O’Connor v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company et al., La.App., 40 So.2d 663.

The record does not show the age of the plaintiff, Mrs. Eliza Russell Walker, but shows that her husband was 70 years old when he was killed, and they had been married at least 34 years, for they had been living together in the Turkey Creek community for that length of time. The deceased, at the time of his death, was not employed and his only dependent was his wife. The Judge below awarded $500 for funeral expenses and $575 for medical expenses, which are undisputed, and $4,000 for suffering, loss of love, companionship and affection.

While the record is meager as to facts ón which to base judgment as to quantum, taking into consideration the length' of their' married life and the evident' advanced age of plaintiff, there must have existed a deep attachment between plaintiff and deceased and consequently a greater loss by reason thereof. 'The District Judge saw Mrs. Walker and, under the facts, even though meager, we will not disturb the award of $4,000.

The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed, defendants to pay all costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willis Alonzo GEORGE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-6984.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

Willis Alonzo George, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Willis Alonzo George seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that George has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be*996fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Craig ALEXY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 01-35622.

D.C. No. CV-00-05068-RJB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

*358Before REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Craig Alexy appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of social security and disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

During the proceedings before the Administrative Law judge (ALJ), Alexy testified that the Veteran’s Administration (VA) Hospital had found him to be disabled. But the ALJ did not request the VA’s medical reports for incorporation into the record. In Social Security cases, the ALJ must fully and fairly develop the record, *Smolen v. Chater,*80 F.3d 1273, 1288 (9th Cir.1996), and incorporate any reports from a VA hospital finding the claimant to be disabled. The VA’s finding of disability must be considered and given great weight. *McCartey v. Massanari,*298 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir.2002).

For the reasons stated in *McCartey,*the ALJ had the burden of obtaining the VA records once Alexy raised the issue by testimony. However, *McCartey*was decided after Alexy’s hearing, and the ALJ did not here request the VA records. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand this case for a new hearing with instructions to obtain the VA records, as is required by *McCartey,*which must be considered at the new hearing.

Because review of the VA records may affect the ALJ’s consideration of other issues raised by Alexy, we decline to reach those issues.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit (10)(a)

  

  

  

  

  

  

  Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

  

  

  

  

  We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
    Post-Effective Amendment No. 9 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-212681) and Amendment No. 514 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The
    Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

   

  

  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

  

  

  

  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

  September 6, 2019
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification Pursuant to Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act

|I, Thomas M. OFlynn, certify that:
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|1.                                 
|                                   
|2.                                 
|                                   
|3.                                 
|                                   
|4.                                 
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|5.                                 
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   

|Date: |  | August 1, 2008 |  | /s/ Thomas M. OFlynn                       
|----- |  | -------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|      |  |                |  | Thomas M. OFlynn                           
|      |  |                |  | Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated
|      |  |                |  | Chief Financial Officer                     

---
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER08-1374-001] 

Take notice that on September 11, 2008, ISO Trader, LLC filed a supplement to its August 15, 2008 initial tariff filing. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                           ( print page 55066)    *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Comment Date:*                     5 pm Eastern Time on October 2, 2008.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

 [FR Doc. E8-22272 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P