alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2435. Unlawful activities

It is unlawful for any person—

(1) to engage in harvesting or other associated activities in violation of the provisions of the Convention or in violation of a conservation measure in force with respect to the United States pursuant to article IX of the Convention;

(2) to violate any regulation promulgated under this chapter;

(3) to ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, purchase, import, export, or have custody, control or possession of, any Antarctic marine living resource (or part or product thereof) harvested in violation of a conservation measure in force with respect to the United States pursuant to article IX of the Convention or in violation of any regulation promulgated under this chapter, without regard to the citizenship of the person that harvested, or vessel that was used in the harvesting of, the Antarctic marine living resource (or part or product thereof);

(4) to refuse to permit any authorized officer or employee of the United States to board a vessel of the United States or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of conducting any search, investigation, or inspection in connection with the enforcement of the Convention, this chapter, or any regulations promulgated under this chapter;

(5) to assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any authorized officer or employee of the United States in the conduct of any search, investigation, or inspection described in paragraph (4);

(6) to resist a lawful arrest or detention for any act prohibited by this section; or

(7) to interfere with, delay, or prevent, by any means, the apprehension, arrest, or detention of another person, knowing that such other person has committed any act prohibited by this section.

(Pub. L. 98–623, title III, §306, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3401; Pub. L. 114–81, title I, §106(1), Nov. 5, 2015, 129 Stat. 657.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2015—Par. (3). Pub. L. 114–81, §106(1)(A), struck out "which he knows, or reasonably should have known, was" before "harvested in violation".

Pars. (4), (5). Pub. L. 114–81, §106(1)(B), (C), inserted ", investigation," after "search".
### §410b. Administration, protection, and development

The administration, protection, and development of the aforesaid park shall be exercised under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior by the National Park Service, subject to the provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), entitled "An Act to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes",1 as amended: Provided, That the provisions of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.] shall not apply to this park: Provided further, That nothing in sections 410 to 410c of this title shall be construed to lessen any existing rights of the Seminole Indians which are not in conflict with the purposes for which the Everglades National Park is created.

(May 30, 1934, ch. 371, §3, 48 Stat. 816; Aug. 21, 1937, ch. 732, 50 Stat. 742.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), entitled "An Act to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes", referred to in text, is act Aug. 25, 1916, ch. 408, 39 Stat. 535, known as the National Park Service Organic Act, which enacted sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this title and provisions set out as a note under section 100101 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs. Sections 1 to 4 of the Act were repealed and restated as section 1865(a) of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and section 100101(a), chapter 1003, and sections 100751(a), 100752, 100753, and 102101 of Title 54 by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 4(a)(1), 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3260, 3272. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables. For disposition of former sections of this title, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.

The Federal Power Act, referred to in text, was in the original the "Act approved June 10, 1920, known as the Federal Water Power Act," and was redesignated as the Federal Power Act by section 791a of this title. The Federal Power Act is act June 10, 1920, ch. 285, 41 Stat. 1063, and is classified generally to chapter 12 (§791a et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 791a of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1937—Act Aug. 21, 1937, struck out proviso which prohibited expenditure of public moneys by the United States on the park within a period of five years.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

1 See References in Text note below.
Exhibit 23.1






                          Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors

TMS, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (no. 333-
65604)  on Form S-8 of TMS, Inc. of our report dated October 11, 2002,  relating
to  the  balance  sheets of TMS, Inc. as of August 31, 2002 and  2001,  and  the
related  statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for  the
years  then  ended, and the related financial statement schedule,  which  report
appears in the August 31, 2002, Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of TMS, Inc.







Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
November 21, 2002
Appendix C 

Typical ROW Cross Sections
A HEALTHY FUTURE 

IS IN YOUR HANDS

CLEAN HANDS 

KEEP YOU HEALTHY

Accessible version: www.cdc.gov/handwashing

281776-A
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133268 Michael F. Cavanagh 

& (10) Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133268 

 COA: 275490 
 Wayne CC: 05-007457-01

TYRONE ANDREW JACKSON,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

remand to the trial court is DENIED. 

l0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
§ 41.7 Coordination with sections 502 and 503. ( a ) Agencies shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board in developing requirements for the accessibility of new facilities and alterations, as required in § 41.58, and shall coordinate with the Board in enforcing such requirements with respect to facilities that are subject to section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, as well as to section 504.
( b ) Agencies shall coordinate with the Department of Labor in enforcing requirements concerning employment discrimination with respect to recipients that are also federal contractors subject to section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
**Explanatory Comment**  Currently, the Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly permit an amendment
correcting the name of a partyagainst whom a claim is asserted to relate back without a showing of concealment when the statute of limitations has expired and the effect of that correction operates to add another party

. However, case law has interpreted the Rules to permit such an amendment within the statute of limitations

. Rule 1033 has been amended to expressly permit amendments correcting the name of the party against whom a claim is asserted to relate back to the date of the commencement of the action if within ninety days after the period provided by law for commencing the action, the partyto be brought in by the amendment has received notice of the commencement ofthe action such that itwill not be prejudiced in obtaining a defense on the merits, and the party knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against the party but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party. Consider the following example: Harry Roberts, who resides at 949 Alcoma Street, Pittsburgh, PA, was the driver of an automobile which struck the plaintiff when he was crossing the intersection at Grant and Forbes Street, Pittsburgh, PA, at approximately 11:00 a.m. on October 11, 2013. The plaintiff’s complaint, filed on October 2, 2015, mistakenly identifies the driver as Henry Rosen. He is the only named defendant in the complaint. On October 7, 2015, the Sheriff made service by serving Mary Roberts at 949 Alcoma Street, Pittsburgh, PA. She is described in the Sheriff’s Return as the wife of the defendant. On January 2, 2016, the complaint is amended to correct “Henry Rosen” to “Harry Roberts.” The amendment of Rule 1033 expressly permits the plaintiff to amend the complaint to correct the name of the defendant to Harry Roberts, because it is clear from the body of the complaint that the plaintiff was suing the driver of the automobile2

which struckthe plaintiffand service of the complaint furnished sufficient notice to Harry Roberts that a lawsuit has been initiated against him for actions he is liable for even though the defendant is identified on the complaint as Henry Rosen. This is consistent with existing case law and codifies current practice. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a majority of states have rules of procedure governing the relation back of amendments, which are similar to this amendment.The interests ofjustice are served by a rule ofcivil procedure permitting a party to correct a complaint that provides an incorrect name ofa partywhen there is no prejudice to the party brought in by the amendment. The amendment of Rule 1033 does not alter the concealment doctrine and the discovery rule. The amendment is intended to cover situations in which neither the concealment doctrine nor the discovery rule apply.

By the Civil Procedural Rules Committee William S. Stickman IV Chair
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 6 -00 508 -CR NO. 03-06-00510- CR

St e phe n Wa lke r , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 331S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS . 3030 475 & D-1- DC-20 05- 3004 38 , HO NORAB LE B OB PERK INS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Ste ph e n Wa lke r a

pp e a ls two or de rs re vo kin gc omm un ity su pe rv isi on . In a

sin g le p o i n t o f er

ror, a ppellant contends that the district court er red by admitting testimony

from an unqualified witness re g ardingthe re sults of a urinaly sis. We overr ule t his contention and af

firm the re vo c atio n o rd e rs .

The witness in quest i o n , a “substanc e abuse monitor” employ ed by the probation depar tment, te stified that he perf ormed a “dip stick” test on a sample of appellant’ s urine. Ac cording to the witness, th e test indicated the pr esenc e of the active ingredie nt in marihuana. A ppellant objected to this testimony on the g round that the witness was unfa miliar with the scientific ba sis for the test. Althoug h the trial cour t overrule d the objection and permitted the witness to te stify to the2

test result, the cour

t stated that “those r esul ts really could not be g iven any

weight unless we had someone c oming in to testify about them.” The c ourt found that appe llant violated the terms and conditions of hi s supervision by failingto pay

various fe es and c osts, by failingto submita urine specimen a s di re cted by his probation office r, and by committing t he subsequent offe nse of unlawfully operating a

vehicle. The “ d i rt y ” urine test alleg ed in the motions to revoke wa s not a rea son for the r evocation. Any e rr or in t he a dmi ssi on

of the c ha lle ng e d te sti mony re g ard ingthat te st w a s, th erefo re , h arm le ss. Tex. R. App. P . 44.2(b).

The orde rs re voking c ommunity supervision are aff

irmed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Jul y

13, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
### SUBCHAPTER XLVI—SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK AND GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-60511

 

HOWARD MONTEVILLE NEAL

Petitioner-Appellant

versus

STEVE W. PUCKETT, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of

Corrections; JAMES ANDERSON, Superintendent, Mississippi State

Penitentiary

Respondents-Appellees

- - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

- - - - -

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion January 18, 2001, 5 Cir., 2001, _____F.3d____)

(September 5, 2001)

Before KING, Chief Judge, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, 

SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, 

BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested

a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc and a majority of

the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a

rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the

court en banc without oral argument. The Clerk will specify a

briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
Affirmed and Memorandum Plurality and Dissentin g Opinion s filed

September 2 9 , 2022

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00639

- CV

SEAN MORRIS, INDIVID UALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DOUGLAS MO RRIS, DECEASED , Appellant

V.

PEARSO N DENT AL SUPPLIES, IN C.; ZAHN DENT AL S U PPLY, A DIVISION OF HENRY SC HEIN, INC.; PEARSON DENTAL SUPPL IES, INC. ; ZAHN DENTAL SUPPLY, A DIVISION OF HENRY SCHEIN, INC. ; HENRY SCHEIN, INC. ; DFW DENTAL SU PPLIES, INC. ; 3 MCOMPANY ; CROSSTEX INTERNATION AL, INC., A W H OLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF CA NT EL MEDICAL CORP ; HENDON DENTAL SUPPLY , INC. ; A LPHA PRO TECH, INC. ; NATIONAL DENTEX CORP ORATION, SUCCESSOR

- IN INTEREST BY MERGER, PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION F/K/A ST ERN REE D DENTAL LAB ; AND GDC HOLDINGS, INC., SUCC ESSOR

- IN

- INTERES T BY M ERGER, PURCHASE O R ACQUI SITION OF NATIONAL DENTEX

CORPORATION , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 514372 MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION

The trial court ’ s attempted August 24, 2020 final j udgme nt used a ve rsion of

the discredited Mother Hubbard clause ( “ ORDERED that all relief not herein granted or that was not previously granted by the Court in this case is denied ” ) and

order ed the c lerk “ to close the file in this case

. ” While it appears t he tr ial court

wa nted t o render a final judgment, this or der does not comply with

Lehmann v

. Har

- Con Corp.

, either by actually disposing of all parties and claims

or stating unambiguously that the judgment i s final ( “ This judgment finally disposes of all p artie s and all cl aims and is appealable ” ). 39 S.W.3d 191 , 206 (Tex.
2001)

. I would not ify the parties of a n involuntary dismissal for want of jurisdiction because it appears there is no final judgment , allowing the partie s to respond

. See Tex. R. App. P. 4 2.3(a ).

I respect fully dissent.

/s/ Char l es A. Spain Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise

, Spain , and Hassan (Wise, J.

, plurality )

.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 64 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 64

 Relating to the use of military force against the Islamic Republic of 
                                 Iran.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 8, 2020

Mr. Merkley (for himself, Mr. Paul, Mr. Markey, Ms. Warren, Mr. Wyden, 
    Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Sanders) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Relating to the use of military force against the Islamic Republic of 
                                 Iran.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN.

    Neither the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 
107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) nor the Authorization for Use of Military 
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 
1541 note) may be interpreted as a statutory authorization for the use 
of military force against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MICHAEL JUDE LAREDO,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-13-00073-CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 4 

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20110C10680)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge)

Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 65 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 65

 Providing for the reappointment of John Fahey as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 9, 2020

  Mr. Boozman (for himself, Mr. Perdue, and Mr. Leahy) introduced the 
following joint resolution; which was read twice, considered, read the 
                         third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for the reappointment of John Fahey as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the 
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other 
than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the expiration of the 
term of John Fahey of Massachusetts on February 20, 2020, is filled by 
the reappointment of the incumbent. The reappointment is for a term of 
six years, beginning on the later of February 20, 2020, or the date of 
the enactment of this joint resolution.
                                 <all>
```
IIA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 55 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Acting Secretary of Homeland 

Security relating to ‘‘Immigrant Investor Program Modernization’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security relating to 

‘‘Immigrant Investor Program Modernization’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Act4 ing Director of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Immigrant 

5 Investor Program Modernization’’ (84 Fed. Reg. 35750; 

6 July 24, 2019), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
### §403h–10. Notice to Governors of North Carolina and Tennessee; application of sections 403h–3 and 403h–4 to subsequent lands accepted

The Secretary of the Interior shall notify in writing the Governors of the States of North Carolina and Tennessee of the passage and approval of this Act, and of the fact that the United States assumes police jurisdiction over said park as specified in said acts of the States of North Carolina and Tennessee. Upon the acceptance by the Secretary of the Interior of further cessions of jurisdiction over lands now or hereafter included in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the provisions of sections 2 to 9 inclusive, shall apply to such lands.

(Apr. 29, 1942, ch. 264, §10, 56 Stat. 261.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is act Apr. 29, 1942, which is classified to sections 403h–1 to 403h–10 of this title. For complete classification of this act to the Code, see Tables.

Sections 2 to 9 inclusive, referred to in text, means sections 2 to 9 of act Apr. 29, 1942, only sections 3 and 4 of which are still in effect and are classified to sections 403h–3 and 403h–4 of this title.
§ 32.32 Time for filing claim. ( a ) Subject to the Act, at 34 U.S.C. 10302(c), and to paragraph (b) of this section, a claim may be filed with the PSOB Office at any time after the injury date.
( b ) Unless, for good cause shown, the Director grants a waiver, no financial claim may be filed with the PSOB Office, with respect to a grading period that commences more than six months after the date of filing.
( c ) A claimant may file with his claim such supporting documentary, electronic, video, or other non-physical evidence and legal arguments as he may wish to provide.
[73 FR 76535, Dec. 17, 2008, as amended at 83 FR 22386, May 15, 2018]