alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"cmoran","title":"Industry Advisory \u2014 Demurrage & Detention Billing Practices - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"bR7NtOQNnm\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/articles\/industry-advisory-demurrage-detention-billing-practices\/\">Industry Advisory \u2014 Demurrage & Detention Billing Practices<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/articles\/industry-advisory-demurrage-detention-billing-practices\/embed\/#?secret=bR7NtOQNnm\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Industry Advisory \u2014 Demurrage & Detention Billing Practices” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"bR7NtOQNnm\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Vessel-Operating Common Carriers (VOCCs) are required to comply with demurrage or detention billing practices established by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (PL 117-146). As previously advised to the trade, there is no phase-in period for this provision of law. The law, and its requirements, related to demurrage and detention charges, became effective June 16, 2022. VOCCs must [...]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants July 25, 2022","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9ze6GDErzH\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-july-25-2022\/\">Applicants July 25, 2022<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-july-25-2022\/embed\/#?secret=9ze6GDErzH\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants July 25, 2022” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"9ze6GDErzH\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
SYTERIA HEPHZIBAH

, Appellant,

v.

THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3044

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 1 , 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Harvey L. Jay , Judge

. Syteria Hephzibah, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Jesse Haskins, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, B.L. THOMAS

, and ROWE

, J J

. , CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         141,546
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  236,375
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               386,437
<PP&E>                                       1,944,558
<DEPRECIATION>                                 748,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,427,163
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,173,936
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        4,795,862
<PREFERRED>                                    131,889
<COMMON>                                   (3,700,741)
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,427,163
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,607,049
<CGS>                                          677,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  677,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,834,831
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             280,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,148,540)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,989
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,152,529)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                275,844
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,652,817)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.46)
        


</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3387 

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to permit 

retirement plans to consider certain factors in investment decisions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2021 

Ms. DELBENE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

of 1974 to permit retirement plans to consider certain 

factors in investment decisions. 

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 ‘‘Financial Factors in 

5 Selecting Retirement Plan Investments Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ERISA AMENDMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 404 of 

8 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

9 (29 U.S.C. 1104) is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following new paragraph: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3387 IH

1 ‘‘(3)(A) Provided that a fiduciary discharges the fidu2 ciary’s duties with respect to a plan in a manner otherwise 

3 consistent with this subsection, a fiduciary may— 

4 ‘‘(i) consider environmental, social, governance, 

5 or similar factors, in connection with carrying out an 

6 investment decision, strategy, or objective, or other 

7 fiduciary act; and 

8 ‘‘(ii) consider collateral environmental, social, 

9 governance, or similar factors as tie-breakers when 

10 competing investments can reasonably be expected to 

11 serve the plan’s economic interests equally well with 

12 respect to expected return and risk over the appro13 priate time horizon. 

14 ‘‘(B) In a case described in clause (i) or (ii) of sub15 paragraph (A), a fiduciary shall not be required to main16 tain any greater documentation, substantiation, or other 

17 justification of the fiduciary’s actions relating to such fi18 duciary act than is otherwise required under this part. 

19 ‘‘(C) Nothing in this part shall preclude an invest20 ment selected in accordance with clause (i) or (ii) of sub21 paragraph (A) from being treated as a default investment 

22 or a component of such a default investment (as described 

23 in regulations issued by the Secretary under subsection 

24 (c)(5)(A)), if such investment would otherwise qualify for 

25 such treatment under such regulations.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3387 IH

1 (b) EFFECT ON REGULATIONS.—The rule entitled 

2 ‘‘Financial Factors in Selecting Plan Investments’’, pub3 lished by the Employee Benefits Security Administration 

4 of the Department of Labor on November 13, 2020 (85 

5 Fed. Reg. 72846), shall cease to have force or effect on 

6 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
FMCS | 250 E Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20427 | 202-606-8100 | www.fmcs.gov

NEWS RELEASE

Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2019 Contact: Greg Raelson

For Immediate Release Office of Public & Congressional Affairs

Website: www.fmcs.gov Phone: (202) 606-8081

FMCS Statement on Tentative Agreement Between UNITE 

HERE Local 11 and Sodexo at Loyola Marymount University

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) today issued the 

following statement on a tentative agreement reached between representatives of UNITE HERE Local 11 

and Sodexo, a subcontracted company that provides food service operations to Loyola Marymount 

University in Los Angeles:

“FMCS is extremely pleased to announce that after extensive negotiations and mediation provided by 

our local federal Commissioner, and with the steadfast dedication of the parties involved, 

representatives of UNITE HERE Local 11 and Sodexo have tentatively agreed to a new contract. 

Resolving their differences and finding acceptable remedies to the issues that divided them, the parties 

persevered and were ultimately successful in coming to an agreement. We wish them congratulations as 

they move forward in their relationship and work together.”

###

The U.S. Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service (FMCS) is the nation’s premier public agency for 

dispute resolution and conflict management. FMCS was created by Congress as a neutral and 

independent government agency upon enactment of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (TaftHartley Act) and mandated to resolve industrial conflict and promote labor-management peace and 

cooperation, minimizing the impact of these disputes on the free flow of commerce. With headquarters 

in Washington, D.C. and offices across the country, the agency has a proud track record of decades of 

effective dispute resolution and conflict management services for employers and unions across industries 

and work activities in the private, public, and federal sectors. FMCS is also recognized for its success 

facilitating negotiated rulemaking processes and for its robust employment mediation program in the 

federal sector as well as its global program, partnering with more than 60 countries to provide 

international consulting and training. For more on FMCS or to request services, visit www.fmcs.gov
#### David JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 09-16997.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 29, 2010.

David Johnson, Jr., Coalinga, CA, pro se.

David Carrasco, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

David Johnson, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing Johnson’s action challenging defendants’ alleged denial of his requests to be classified as ineligible to participate in work programs or to be granted accommodations for his back problems. We have jurisdiction under 28 *221U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Johnson failed to state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Social Security Act. *See O’Guinn v. Lo-velock Carr. Ctr.,*502 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir.2007) (listing elements of a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (providing for judicial review of “any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security”).

This court does not consider matters that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5

<S>                                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                     APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                          JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                                                     24,044
<SECURITIES>                                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                           24,044
<PP&E>                                                                      2,656
<DEPRECIATION>                                                                531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                             26,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                      11,467
<BONDS>                                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                                    7,227
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                                  8,006
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                               26,700
<SALES>                                                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                                0
<CGS>                                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          130,715
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                          (130,715)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                      (130,715)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                             (130,715)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                                 .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                 .00



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3314 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3314

To prohibit certain provisions of an Executive order pertaining to land 
        conservation from taking effect, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2021

   Mr. Mann introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on 
  Agriculture, and Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit certain provisions of an Executive order pertaining to land 
        conservation from taking effect, and for other purposes.

    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 ``No Land Grab Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Section 216 of Executive Order 14008 (86 Fed. Reg. 
7619; relating to Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad) shall 
not have the force and effect of law.
    (b) Recommendations of Report.--No Federal agency may take an 
action if such action is solely authorized by a report or 
recommendation issued pursuant to such section.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10489 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KEVIN WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:95-CR-15-X

- - - - - - - - - - April 17, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Kevin White appeals from his sentence following his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He argues that the heightened penalty provisions for cocaine base contained in the sentencing guidelines violated his rights to due process and equal protection and that the district court erred by overruling hisNo. 96-10489 - 2 - objection to the PSR based upon sentencing entrapment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. This court has held that the disparate sentencing provisions for crack cocaine and cocaine powder contained in the sentencing guidelines do not offend constitutional due process or equal protection guarantees.
See United States v. Watson , 953 F.2d 895, 897 (5th Cir. 1992). The court declines to address the second issue raised by White on appeal because he has waived his right to appeal his sentence.
See United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.