alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 631

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 18, 2000.

Whereas the guided missile destroyer U.S.S. COLE (DDG–

67) was severely damaged on October 12, 2000, when a

boat bomb exploded alongside that ship while on a refueling stop in Aden, Yemen;

Whereas the explosion resulted in a 40-by-45 foot hole in the

port side of the ship at the waterline and left seven of

the ship’s crew dead, ten who, as of October 17, 2000,

are missing and presumed dead, and over three dozen

wounded;

Whereas the U.S.S. COLE had stopped in Aden for routine

refueling while in transit from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf to conduct forward maritime presence operations in the Persian Gulf region as part of the U.S.S.

George Washington battle group;

Whereas the members of the United States Navy killed and

wounded in the bombing were performing their duty in

furtherance of the national security interests of the

United States;

Whereas United States national security interests continue to

require the forward deployment of elements of the Armed

Forces;
2

•HRES 631 EH

Whereas the members of the Armed Forces are routinely

called upon to perform duties that place their lives at

risk;

Whereas the crew members of the U.S.S. COLE who lost

their lives as a result of the bombing of their ship on October 12, 2000, died in the honorable service to the Nation and exemplified all that is best in the American people; and

Whereas the heroic efforts of the surviving crew members of

the U.S.S. COLE after the attack to save their ship and

rescue their wounded shipmates are in the highest tradition of the United States Navy: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives, in response

to the terrorist bombing attack on the U.S.S. COLE (DDG–

67) on October 12, 2000, while on a refueling stop in Aden,

Yemen, hereby—

(1) honors the members of the crew of the U.S.S.

COLE who died as a result of that attack and sends

heartfelt condolences to their families, friends, and loved

ones;

(2) honors the members of the crew of the U.S.S.

COLE who were wounded in the attack for their service

and sacrifice, expresses its hopes for their rapid and

complete recovery, and extends its sympathies to their

families;

(3) commends the crew of the U.S.S. COLE for

their heroic damage control efforts; and
3

•HRES 631 EH

(4) condemns the attack against the U.S.S. COLE

as an unprovoked and cowardly act of terrorism.

Attest:

Clerk.
### §886. Art. 86. Absence without leave

Any member of the armed forces who, without authority—

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 67.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 886 | 50:680. | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, §1 (Art. 86), 64 Stat. 135. |

The words "proper" and "other" are omitted as surplusage.
#### Edward Reehil, Respondent, v. John Fraas, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred; Hirschberg, P. J., not voting.
### §9252. Service credit: regular enlisted members; service as an officer to be counted as enlisted service

An enlisted member of the Regular Air Force or the Space Force is entitled to count active service as an officer in the Air Force, in the Space Force, and in the Army, as enlisted service for all purposes.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 535, §8684; renumbered §9252, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §806(b)(9), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1833; Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title IX, §923(c)(10), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3811; Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title XVII, §1721(a)(4), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 665.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8684 | 10:631a (last proviso). | July 14, 1939, ch. 267, §1 (last proviso); restated May 29, 1954, ch. 249, §19(b) (last proviso), 68 Stat. 166. |

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2023—Pub. L. 118–31 struck out "Regular" before "Space Force is entitled".

2021—Pub. L. 116–283 inserted "or the Regular Space Force" after "Regular Air Force" and "in the Space Force," after "in the Air Force,".

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 8684 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 593

To provide for the consideration of a private relief bill by the United States

Court of Claims, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 25, 2000

Mr. ROHRABACHER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

To provide for the consideration of a private relief bill by

the United States Court of Claims, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That the bill for the relief of Salah Idris

2 (‘‘Idris’’) of Saudi Arabia and El Shifa Pharmaceutical

3 Industries Company of the Sudan (‘‘El Shifa’’) now pend4 ing in the House of Representatives is hereby referred to

5 the United States Claims Court and the Chief Judge of

6 the United States Claims Court shall proceed with the

7 same in accordance with the provision of sections 1492

8 and 2509 of title 28, United States Code; the court shall

9 file its report within 18 months from the dates of filing

10 of the petition on behalf of Idris and El Shifa in the court
2

•HRES 593 IH

1 giving such findings of fact and conclusions of law therein

2 as shall be sufficient to inform Congress of the nature and

3 character of the demands as claims legal or equitable,

4 against the United States, and the amounts, if any, legally

5 or equitably due from the United States to the claimants.

Æ
H. Res. 624

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 12, 2000.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States

missions and personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations

for the Department of State for fiscal year 2000, and for

other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference

report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 132 3 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 0 -NM - 2 1 2 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
§ 44.101 What directives apply to a grantee under this part? In making a grant under this part the Secretary will use only: ( a ) The Tribally Controlled Schools Act;
( b ) The regulations in this part; and
( c ) Guidelines, manuals, and policy directives agreed to by the grantee.
# C_2006178EN.01004101.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/41

---

Judgement of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 June 2006 (Second Chamber) — Mc Sweeny and Armstrong v Commission

(Case F-25/05) (1)

1

(Open competition - Competition notice - Guide for candidates - Non-admission to the tests - Diplomas required - Power of the Appointing Authority)

(2006/C 178/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Dypna Mc Sweeny (Brussels, Belgium) and Pauline Armstrong (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, X. Martin, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and K. Hermann, Agents)

Defendant:

:

Re:

Annulment of the decisions of the selection board of 6 and 7 September 2004 not to admit the applicants to the EPSO/C/11/03 competition tests (OJ 2003 C 267 A, p. 1.), organised for the purposes of drawing up a reserve list of English-language secretaries (C 5/ C4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the selection board of 6 and 7 September 2004 not to admit the applicants to the tests for Competition EPSO/C/11/03. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the selection board of 6 and 7 September 2004 not to admit the applicants to the tests for Competition EPSO/C/11/03.

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, of 23.7.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-184/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

1

---
| Date: March 28, 2013                                                                                                                           |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                                                           |   |
|                                                                                                                                           |   |
|  /s/ Julia A. Sloat                                                      |   |
|                                                                                                                                           |   |
| Name:  Julia A. SloatTitle: Treasurer and Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function, AEP Texas Central Company, as Servicer |   |
### **CHAPTER 45—PAYMENT SYSTEM RISK REDUCTION**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—BILATERAL AND CLEARING ORGANIZATION NETTING

Sec.
4401.
Findings and purpose.
4402.
Definitions.
4403.
Bilateral netting.
4404.
Clearing organization netting.
4405.
Preemption.
4406.
Relationship to other payments systems.
4406a.
Treatment of contracts with uninsured national banks, uninsured Federal branches and agencies, certain uninsured State member banks, and Edge Act corporations.
4407.
National emergencies.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—MULTILATERAL CLEARING ORGANIZATIONS

4421, 4422. Repealed.
#### Emily Bayne, Respondent, v. Oak Duke, Appellant.

(Nos. 1, 2 and 3.)

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred.
# C_2006261EN.01001502.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/15

---

Action brought on 8 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-369/06)

(2006/C 261/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and K. Gross, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to transpose Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under both Article 2 of the Directive and the third paragraph of Article 249 EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to transpose Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under both Article 2 of the Directive and the third paragraph of Article 249 EC;

1

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive expired on 31 July 2001.

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 193, p. 75.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4217]



[[Page 10609]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2006-N-0237] (formerly 2006N-0061)


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Charging for Investigational Drugs

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Charging for Investigational 
Drugs'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of 
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., 
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3792, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#682d040112090a0d1c00462a0d1a0a0903071b280e0c094600001b460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="195c757063787b7c6d71375b7c6b7b7872766a597f7d783771716a377e766f">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 14, 2006 
(71 FR 75168), the Agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0651. 
The approval expires on December 31, 2011. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: February 18, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-4217 Filed 2-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
\l

' 

### ' March 31,2015 Marcia Totemoff 2479 Havenshire Place Anchorage, Alaska 99504 mtotemoff@tatitlek.com
Mr. Scott Faulk U.S. Department ofTransportation EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 

### Subject: Essential Air Service Tatitlek

To Whom It May Concern, c:::_;.·y, •**·-·~-~** 'ji

. ·'
-.. lli.:CI'J**~~­** ' ; ::· r:;;.:;r,o-.- ·.-,Jn'. '····'.Jl\JJ;J,\ \.J,· 

### ,.---:--··· r:1**~~~:-r:** t 

### +r-.. ·:..'"'

- •· .J

. . ._ • '-· j L.l •. ·,,**IJ!\.~.** 

### _fJ_L_ '·· 

# ,, - 0- lj: 1.**~** • \ t 4 \..,1-

I have utilized Reeve Air Alaska in the past**~d** continue to do so today for my travel needs in and out ofthe village ofTatitlek. I can personally attest to the dependability and professionalism ofthis business. I recommend that the Department ofTransportation give the community the best option for service and savings by allowing Reeve Air to retain the essential air contract. Reeve Air provides dependable service along with cargo and seat fare rates that are advantageous to the residents ofTatitlek and unmatched by any other carrier. Allowing more than one business**;--~---~to::..-** Qrovide flight service to the community'also givesthe members cost savings <YQtiohs, a 

## varietx,

_____ _ l_ qftravel days and**great(:!r-qhan~~** ofacccssihility:
I belt

### eve that allowmg-Reeve Atr to retmn the travel contract for the vtllagc of.Tatttlet< 

### 1s m the· best interest ofthe community members. The cost ofrural living is expensive and every chance for savings is essential to the survival ofthe community. Please take the well-being ofthe community into consideration when you award this contract and pass the savings onto the residents ofTatitlek. Respectfully,

# ~~--rwu~ Tribal Member ofTatitlek

### March 

### 31, 2015
June Totemoff 

### PO Box 103 Tatitlek, Alaska 

### 99677 (907) 325-8082
Mr. Scott Faulk U.S. Department of Transportation EAS 

### & Domestic Analysis Division 

### 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 

### 20590 Subject: Essential Air 

### Service to Community of Tatitlek

To Whom It May Concern, I use Reeve Air for all travel in and out of Tatltlek that my family needs. His service is dependable and the rates are the best offered.

# '~! I



### I recommend his service to anyone travelinq and appreciate his friendly and helpful attitude. He is readily available when I need him and always willing to help. I hope that he will be able to continue to provide service to the community because a**!-------l·ot-o·f:-pe·opl·e-depend-on,....tri':s-s'e-rvi·ce~a'nd~p--ri-c±ng_~.---------------** 

### Respectfully,

# ~'U~t**~~~** June Totemoff Resident of Tatitlek
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Douglas Lee Temple, appellant.

225 N. W. 2d 422

Filed January 30, 1975.

No. 39609.

Edmund W. Hollstein, Charles A. Fisher, and Charles F. Fisher, for appellant.

Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Terry R. Schaaf, for appellee.

Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, McCown, Newton, Clinton, and Brodkey, JJ.

Newton, J.

A jury found the defendant guilty of assault and battery. Efis assignments of error deal primarily with his contention that he acted in self-defense and with the court’s refusal to give instructions requested regarding the defense of self-defense. He also complains that the court omitted the word “unlawfully” in defining the elements of assault. We affirm.

A review of the record completely fails to substantiate defendant’s claim that he acted in self-defense. Two young men were lying on the ground fighting. All witnesses, except defendant, concede that E. A. Anderson came on the scene, went to the fighters, bent over, placed a hand on one or both, and advised them to break it up. Defendant admits this except he states he did not know what Anderson was doing or intended. Defendant put his arm around Anderson, jerked him upright and struck him twice, knocking out six teeth. Defendant’s intervention was completely unjustifiable.

*90. It is not error to refuse an instruction on an issue which is not supported by the evidence. See, Nelson v. State, 159 Neb. 663, 68 N. W. 2d 194; Pulliam v. State, 167 Neb. 614, 94 N. W. 2d 51; Bell v. State, 159 Neb. 474, 67 N. W. 2d 762.

In instructing on the elements of the offense of assault and battery, the court did not state that the assault must be “unlawful.” The court did define the term “assault” in a subsequent instruction which stated that it was “a wrongful offer or attempt with unlawful force or threats, made in a menacing manner, to inflict bodily injury upon another with present apparent ability to give effect to the attempt.” Considering the two instructions together, it is clear that the jury could not have been misled or the defendant prejudiced. Related instructions must be read and construed together and if when so read and construed they correctly state the law, there is no error. See, State v. Jackson, 186 Neb. 22, 180 N. W. 2d 134; State v. Davis, 186 Neb. 457, 183 N. W. 2d 753.

' The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. '

Affirmed.