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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #15242 and #15243; COLORADO Disaster Number CO-00078]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Colorado dated 08/10/2017. *Incident:*
                         Severe Thunderstorm, Hail, Straight-line Winds and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:*
                         06/25/2017.
 DATES: Issued on 08/10/2017. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/10/2017. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/10/2018.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Baca *Contiguous Counties:* Colorado: Bent, Las Animas, Prowers. Kansas: Morton, Stanton. New Mexico: Union. Oklahoma: Cimarron. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.875Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.938Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
6.430Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.215Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.215Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15242 B and for economic injury is 15243 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Dated: August 10, 2017. Linda E. McMahon, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2017-17458 Filed 8-17-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1565

JENNIFER PERKINS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. US AIRWAYS , INC.; US AIRWAYS GROUP; AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, successor by merger with US Airways Inc.; US AIRWAYS HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Bru ce H. Hendricks , District Judge. ( 6:14

- cv
- 02577

- BHH )

Submitted : December 29, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Nekki Shutt, Jacqueline M

. Pavlicek , BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, P

. A ., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Shannon M. Barrett, Deanna M. Rice, O’ MELVENY & MYERS, LLP , Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jennife r Perkins appeals the district court’s order s denying relief on her complaint asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 , 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001

- 1461 (2012), and the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b) (2012)

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Perkins v. US Airways, Inc. , No. 6:14

-

cv
- 02577

- BHH (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2015; Aug. 10, 2016; Mar. 31, 2017 ). We dispense
with oral a rgument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 21, 2009)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 35765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17451]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 35765]]


                Memorandum of July 17, 2009

                
 Assignment of Reporting Functions Under the 
                Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State[,] the Secretary 
                of Defense[,] the Attorney General[, and] the Director 
                of National Intelligence

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States, 
                including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I 
                hereby assign the authority to perform the functions 
                conferred upon the President by sections 319(a), (c), 
                and (d) and sections 14103(d), (e), and (f) of the 
                Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-
                32), as follows:

1. To the Attorney General, of providing to the Congress the reports 
specified in sections 319(a), 319(c)(1)-(3), and 14103(f), as well as the 
plan specified in section 14103(d);

2. To the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Defense, of providing to the Congress the report specified in 
sections 319(a), 319(c)(4)-(5), and 319(d); and

3. To the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Defense, of providing to the Congress the information specified in section 
14103(e).

                The Attorney General is authorized and directed to 
                publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, July 17, 2009.

[FR Doc. E9-17451
Filed 7-20-09; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4410-19-M
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**714 TP 15-01940**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ASHLEIGH SCHWALLIE, PETITIONER,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, RESPONDENTS.

LAW OFFICE OF LINDY KORN, PLLC, BUFFALO (CHARLES MILLER OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.
CAROLINE J. DOWNEY, GENERAL COUNSEL, BRONX, FOR RESPONDENT NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (KRISTIN K. WHEATON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto, J.], dated November 16, 2015) to review a determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights. The determination dismissed petitioner’s complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Same memorandum as in Matter of Figueroa v New York State Div. of Human Rights (___ AD3d ___ [Sept. 30, 2016]).

Entered: September 30, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Broughty *v.*Five Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty-Six Bundles of Staves, etc.

*(Circuit Court, N. D. New York.*

January 30, 1885.)

Carriers of Goods—Loss of Goods—Evidence.

Decree of district court, 21 Eed. Hep. 590, affirmed.

In Admiralty.

*Marshall, Clinton & Wilson,*for appellant.

*Cook & Fitzgerald,*for appellee.

Wallace, J.

Under the allegations in the libel, the libelant cannot be permitted to deny that he received on board his schooner all the cargo described in the bill of lading. But the claimant, the consignee, accepted the cargo without insisting upon a tally by the carrier, and without making one himself, to ascertain whether all was delivered that was shipped. Part of the cargo after its delivery to the consignee was permitted to remain exposed on the dock over night. After the cargo was transferred from the dock to the cars the ears were sealed, and the cargo remained in them for about six weeks when a tally was made, and it was discovered that part of the cargo described in the bill of lading was missing. The acceptance of the cargo by the claimant without objection was an acknowledgment that the carrier had performed his contract, and implied a promise to pay the freight, which the consignee was instructed to pay by the bill of lading upon delivery. The testimony for the libelant tends to show that all the cargo received was delivered as strongly as the testimony for the claimant tends to show the contrary. The affirmative of the issue is with the claimant, he having accepted delivery of the cargo. His proofs are as unsatisfactory as those of the libelant. It is as reasonable to infer that the missing part of the cargo was stolen upon the dock after it had.been delivered to the consignee as that it was lost or misappropriated on the voyage. The decree of the district court is affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet at September 30, 1999 and the statement of operations for the three months
and nine months ended September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                               <C>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     JUL-1-1999          JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-1999         SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                              5,268,686           5,268,686
<SECURITIES>                                0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0                   0
<INVENTORY>                                 0                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    5,688,171           5,668,171
<PP&E>                              1,963,388           1,963,388
<DEPRECIATION>                      1,886,764           1,886,764
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      5,771,945           5,771,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               1,673,549           1,673,549
<BONDS>                                     0                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                 0                   0
<COMMON>                              140,895             140,895
<OTHER-SE>                          3,838,831           3,838,831
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        5,771,945           5,771,945
<SALES>                                     0                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       65,845             221,225
<CGS>                                       0                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         691,504          11,613,819
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      9,482              19,083
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (635,141)        (11,411,677)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (635,141)        (11,411,677)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0                   0
<CHANGES>                                   0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                         (635,141)        (11,411,677)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (0.05)              (1.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.05)              (1.24)



</TABLE>
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTtN 

3itmor8ble Qb6rl68 H. Theohfd 

Gounty Attwne 

Q6lve*ton ooun F y 

Qalverton, Few 
_i- 

xt~ingol~iroaths~~*~emddseirianr, 

as MU se froa othera that might ba alted, that Gangerr haa 

tb power to wnwol natur~tion fees, aad it hsviag 

vid#i tb& in war t&m tba Matciot Glork rhould not 401 p"" ect 

owteln fwr,,ve hold tbe D;Lmtrlot 01-k hu the rygb to 

-PO the 45lleotion~oi all euoh etetutmy feea, aWoe PO 

psrt of’euoh feea vo+ltl be pay&b18 to tlw State; ud tble 

WithOUt l'4~&tOVh4thtlllO~AOtt.b 5QldBUiaasbe’ 454Pt 

should peas au order authorieing 0~14 Clerk to r*ive the aol1eotUn 0r euab r-8. Jbreorer, the Glork W-no &&xl pl&ht 

to aollwt l wh foes dlping var tlw uiado~ %ha l trti¶tee herelasbom quoted. 

: 

Jmtdb
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11553 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
GASPAR SANTANA

- GUZMAN , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 122

- 10

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gaspar Santana

- Guzman appeals his 120

- month prison sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He correctly acknowledges tha t his as

- applied Sixth Amendment sentencing challenge is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See
Uni ted States v. Hernandez , 633 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we GRANT his motion for summary disposition and AFFIRM the judgment of
the district court.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 26, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11553 Document: 00513968502 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2017
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson CARRILLO-GARCIA, a.k.a. Nelso, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2:11-cr-00334-GAF.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Jan. 8, 2013.

Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Patricia Daffodil Tyminski, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kathryn Ann Young, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Nelson Carrillo-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(viii). We review unpreserved claims of procedural error for plain error and challenges to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Valenciar-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103,1108 (9th Cir.2010). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Carrillo-Garcia contends that the district court procedurally erred by (i) treating the Guidelines as mandatory, (ii) failing to consider all of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and various mitigating arguments, (iii) failing to consider unwarranted sentencing disparities, and (iv) relying upon clearly erroneous facts. The district court understood its discretion under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, considered Carrillo-Garcia’s arguments in mitigation as part of its evaluation of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, expressly considered the issue of sentencing disparities, and did not rely upon clearly erroneous facts or otherwise procedurally err. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

*550Carrillo-Garda also contends that the district court impermissibly lengthened his sentence, in part, to enable him to obtain superior medical care. The record does not support the contention that the court lengthened Carrillo-Garcia’s sentence in order to promote his health.

Carrillo-Garcia finally contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his poor health and lack of criminal history. The sentence ten months below the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Carrillo-Garcia’s motion to preserve confidentiality in the disposition of this case is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 440 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 440

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for an exclusion 
 for assistance provided to participants in certain veterinary student 
                loan repayment or forgiveness programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 10, 2015

Mr. Crapo (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Risch, Mr. King, Mr. Roberts, 
 Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Isakson, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. 
   Franken, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Hirono, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Mr. Sanders) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for an exclusion 
 for assistance provided to participants in certain veterinary student 
                loan repayment or forgiveness programs.

    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 ``Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment 
Program Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO PARTICIPANTS IN CERTAIN 
              VETERINARY STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT OR FORGIVENESS 
              PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 108(f) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' after ``such Act,'',
            (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, 
        under section 1415A of the National Agricultural Research, 
        Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3151a), or 
        under any other State loan repayment or loan forgiveness 
        program that is intended to provide for increased access to 
        veterinary services in such State.'', and
            (3) by striking ``state'' in the heading and inserting 
        ``other''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts received by an individual in taxable years beginning 
after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
----

**Exhibit      10.4**

**COMPLETION      GUARANTY AGREEMENT**

***[REMAINDER      OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK]***
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 223

Amending rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit 

the employing office of an employee of the House who serves in a 

reserve component of the uniformed services to pay the employee an 

additional salary for any period during which the employee is on active 

duty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2003

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION

Amending rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit the employing office of an employee of the House who serves in a reserve component 

of the uniformed services to pay the employee an additional salary for any period during which the employee 

is on active duty.

1 Resolved,
2

•HRES 223 IH 

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL 

2 SALARY FOR HOUSE EMPLOYEES IN THE RE3 SERVES OR NATIONAL GUARD DURING PERI4 ODS OF ACTIVE DUTY. 

5 Clause 8(a) of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House 

6 of Representatives is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)(1)’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub10 paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(2) Nothing in subparagraph (1) prohibits the 

12 employing office of any employee who serves on ac13 tive duty (other than for training) as a member of 

14 a reserve component of the uniformed services with 

15 respect to any pay period during the One Hundred 

16 Eighth Congress from paying additional compensa17 tion to that employee for that pay period, so long as 

18 the amount of the additional compensation does not 

19 exceed the difference between the compensation paid 

20 to the employee by the office for the most recent pay 

21 period before the employee’s active duty service com22 menced and the amount of any compensation paid to 

23 the employee as a member of the uniformed services 

24 for that pay period.’’.

Æ