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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3285 

To help certain communities adversely affected by FEMA’s flood mapping 

modernization program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 29, 2010 

Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. PRYOR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To help certain communities adversely affected by FEMA’s 

flood mapping modernization program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION AND FLOOD PRO4 TECTION SYSTEMS. 

5 (a) SUSPENSION OF MAPPING UPDATES.—Notwith6 standing subsections (e) and (f) of section 1360 of the 

7 National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101(e) 

8 and (f)), the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 

9 Management Agency shall not revise, update, or publish 

10 any flood insurance rate map under its Flood Map ModVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:25 Apr 30, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3285.IS S3285

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3285 IS

1 ernization Program (commonly referred to as ‘‘Map 

2 Mod’’) for any counties that are protected by a structure 

3 built or maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers un4 less the affected owner of such structure or the community 

5 protected by such structure— 

6 (1) has been formally notified of any defi7 ciencies in such structure; and 

8 (2) has been afforded 7 years to rectify any 

9 such deficiencies that would affect the flood insur10 ance rate map for the geographic area in which such 

11 structure or community is located. 

12 (b) LIMITATION ON REQUIRED PURCHASE; SUSPEN13 SION OF PREMIUM INCREASES.—Until such time as the 

14 owner of a structure described in subsection (a) has been 

15 afforded 7 years to rectify any identified deficiencies in 

16 the structure, and notwithstanding the mandatory pur17 chase requirements of sections 102 and 202 of the Flood 

18 Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4106), 

19 the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 

20 Agency shall not— 

21 (1) require owners of property located in any 

22 county described in subsection (a) who, prior to the 

23 date of enactment of this Act were not required to 

24 purchase flood insurance, to purchase flood insur25 ance; and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3285 IS

1 (2) for owners of property located in any county 

2 described in subsection (a) that had purchased flood 

3 insurance prior to the date of enactment of this Act, 

4 increase the risk premium rate charged for such 

5 flood insurance. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14056]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (09-051)]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.

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

SUMMARY: Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for 
licensing.

DATES: June 16, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kaprice L. Harris, Attorney Advisor, 
Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Code 500-118, Cleveland, OH 
44135; telephone (216) 433-5754; fax (216) 433-6790.
    NASA Case No. LEW-18325-1: External Magnetic Field Reduction 
Technique for Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator.

    Dated: June 10, 2009.
Richard W. Sherman,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E9-14056 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE;P
Exhibit 10(g)
​

AMENDMENT THREE
to the
ADTALEM GLOBAL EDUCATION RETIREMENT PLAN
(as amended and restated effective January 1, 2020)
WHEREAS, Adtalem Global Education Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Adtalem Global Education Retirement Plan (the “Plan”), most recently restated as of January 1, 2020;
WHEREAS, Section 13.01 of the Plan provides that the any officer of the Company is authorized to amend the Plan on behalf of the Company with respect to any amendment that does not materially increase or decrease the cost to the employers of providing benefits under the Plan;
WHEREAS, the Company is selling its interest in Becker/OCL and ACAMS and desires to allow [Becker/OCL and ACAMS] to continue participating in the Plan post-closing pursuant to an transition services agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Article 14 (General Provisions) of the Plan is amended, effective as of March 10, 2022, to add a new Section 14.11 at the end thereof to read as follows:
14.11  Multiple Employer Plan Temporary Provisions 
Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, for the period beginning on the closing date of the Becker/OCL and ACAMS’s divestiture from the Company’s controlled group and ending on the date on which benefits under the Transition Services Agreement related to such divestiture (“TSA”) end pursuant to the terms of the TSA, the Plan and its related Trust are intended to also qualify as a multiple employer plan pursuant to Section 413(c) of the Code, as amended from time to time.  For this limited period of time, the Plan will be a multiple employer plan and Becker/OCL and ACAMS shall be treated as a separate Employer for application of such Plan provisions as the Company determines to be appropriate.  Becker/OCL and ACAMS shall no longer be deemed an Employer after the end of the transition period defined in the TSA.
​



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer of the Company hereby executes this amendment on behalf of the Company on this ___ day of March 2022.



​
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

FREDRICK HAGEN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50090 

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00159-MWF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Fredrick Hagen appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

the revocation of probation and the 16-month sentence imposed upon revocation. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Hagen’s counsel has filed a 

brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw 

 

* 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).

FILED

FEB 16 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-50090 

as counsel of record. We have provided Hagen the opportunity to file a pro se 

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been 

filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation and sentence.

We remand the case to the district court with instructions to correct the 

judgment to reflect the revocation of probation, rather than supervised release.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
#### MEDICAL SAVINGS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HCA, INC., HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc., Lee Memorial Health Systems, Inc., Martin Memorial Health System, Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Lee Memorial Hosp., et al., Defendants.

No. 05-14230.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 27, 2006.

Man Jeffrey Nisberg, Anthony J. Russo, Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Julia C. Ambrose, Kevin D. McDonald, Toby G. Singer, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, James R. Atwood, Covington *&*Burling, Adam J. Coates, Jeffrey W. Kilduff, Jay T. Smith, Lani Miller, Washington, DC, Geoffrey P. Forgione, Jones Day, Los Angeles, CA, David Clark Borueke, Steven L. Brannock, Holland & Knight, LLP, Benjamin H. Hill, III, Lara J. Tibbals, Marie A. Borland, Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BLACK, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record and the written and oral arguments presented by all parties, we affirm based on the well-reasoned opinion of the district court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The  consolidated  balance  sheet as of May 31,  1999 and the  consolidated
statement of income for the six months ended May 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000823975
<NAME>                        Columbus Energy Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         948
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,183
<ALLOWANCES>                                   116
<INVENTORY>                                    105
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,406
<PP&E>                                         39,239
<DEPRECIATION>                                 20,831
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,686
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       928
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,941
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   22,055
<SALES>                                        4,304
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,023
<CGS>                                          1,342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             175
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (334)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (127)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (207)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (207)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.05)



</TABLE>
#### Nella Manko, Appellant, v Bernard H. Broome et al., Defendants, and Professional Evaluation Group, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted March 4, 2013;

decided April 30, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic. Cross motion to hold appellant in contempt denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA AZUCENA BENAVIDEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-70055

Agency No. A096-064-324

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 14, 2013** 

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Maria Azucena Benavidez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her

motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C .

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 

FILED

MAY 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-70055

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Benavidez’s motion to

reopen where Benavidez failed to submit any newly available, material evidence of

hardship. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Contrary to Benavidez’s assertions in her

motion to reopen, no medical evidence relevant to the hardship to her qualifying

relatives was submitted with her motion. 

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Benavidez’s motion to

reopen on the ground that she waived her allegations of ineffective assistance of

counsel. See Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 196 (9th Cir. 1992). 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Benavidez’s contention that her case

warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v.

Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
      333-136432 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 28, 2007 relating to the
      financial statements (and with respect to the report on those financial
      statements, expressed an unqualified opinion and included an explanatory
      paragraph concerning the adoption of new accounting pronouncements in 2004
      and
      2006) and financial statement schedule of Appalachian Power Company and
      subsidiaries appearing in and incorporated by reference in the Annual Report
      on
      Form 10-K of Appalachian Power Company and subsidiaries for the year ended
      December 31, 2006.








/s/
      Deloitte & Touche LLP




Columbus,
      Ohio


February
      28, 2007
#### In re Ronald A. SCHACHAR.

No. 05-1455.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 14, 2006.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 13, 2006.

Before NEWMAN, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: *AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Domingo Pando ARANDA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40790.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Us Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Domingo Pando-Aranda, Post, TX, pro se.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Domingo Pando Aranda (Aranda), federal prisoner #41913-079, proceeding pro se, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Aranda seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his second “Motion for Relief’ from his 1988 sentence based on *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The district court also denied Aranda’s motion for leave to proceed IFP and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Aranda’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district’s certification. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). He has failed to show that his appeal involves “legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks omitted); *see United States v. Early,*27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994); *United States v. Gentry,*432 F.3d 600, 605-06 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Aranda is WARNED that the filing or prosecution of frivolous appeals in the future will subject him to *493sanctions. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 38; *Clark v. Green,*814 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir.1987).

*

 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.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3444 

To require small business training for contracting officers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 27 (legislative day, MAY 26), 2010 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. CARDIN, and Ms. LANDRIEU) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small 

Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To require small business training for contracting officers. 

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 ‘‘Small Business Train5 ing in Federal Contracting Certification Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS TRAINING. 

7 Section 37(f)(3) of the Office of Federal Procurement 

8 Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 433(f)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘For each career path,’’ and in10 serting the following: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3444 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For each career 

2 path,’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(B) CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.— 

5 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator 

6 shall establish a certification program for 

7 acquisition personnel. The certification 

8 program shall be carried out through the 

9 Federal Acquisition Institute. 

10 ‘‘(ii) SMALL BUSINESS TRAINING.— 

11 The certification program under this sub12 paragraph shall include training regard13 ing— 

14 ‘‘(I) small business government 

15 contracting set-aside programs, in16 cluding— 

17 ‘‘(aa) programs for 

18 HUBZone small business con19 cerns, small business concerns 

20 owned and controlled by service21 disabled veterans, and small busi22 ness concerns owned and con23 trolled by women (as those terms 

24 are defined in section 3 of the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3444 IS

1 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

2 632)); 

3 ‘‘(bb) programs for socially 

4 and economically disadvantaged 

5 small business concerns (as de6 fined in section 8(a) of the Small 

7 Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

8 637(a))); and 

9 ‘‘(cc) contracting under the 

10 Small Business Innovation Re11 search Program and the Small 

12 Business Technology Transfer 

13 Program (as those terms are de14 fined in section 9(e) of the Small 

15 Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

16 638(e))); 

17 ‘‘(II) determining small business 

18 size standards and using North Amer19 ican Industry Classification System 

20 codes in relation to contracting set21 aside programs and subcontracting 

22 goals; and 

23 ‘‘(III) any other issue relating to 

24 contracting with small business con25 cerns (as defined under section 3 of 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
4 

•S 3444 IS

1 the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

2 632)) determined appropriate by the 

3 Administrator.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,575,853
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,575,853
<PP&E>                                      18,893,111
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,468,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,239
<BONDS>                                        717,677
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,634,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,468,964
<SALES>                                      1,132,043
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,223,640
<CGS>                                          108,140
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               279,559
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                835,941
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            835,941
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   835,941
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    16.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    16.96
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Anonymous, an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law, Appellant. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Respondent.

Submitted January 31, 2011;

decided February 17, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          39,228
<SECURITIES>                                    95,803
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                       443
<INVENTORY>                                      9,710
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               171,696
<PP&E>                                          51,263
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 244,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,040
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                     211,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   244,084
<SALES>                                         28,502
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,502
<CGS>                                           12,567
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,567
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,872
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,017
<INCOME-TAX>                                       372
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,645
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,645
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>