alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5567 

AN ACT 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the 

Federal Communications Commission to consider market 

entry barriers for socially disadvantaged individuals in 

the communications marketplace report under section 13 

of such Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5567 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Measuring the Eco3 nomics Driving Investments and Access for Diversity Act 

4 of 2020’’ or the ‘‘MEDIA Diversity Act of 2020’’. 

5 SEC. 2. CONSIDERING MARKET ENTRY BARRIERS FOR SO6 CIALLY DISADVANTAGED INDIVIDUALS. 

7 Section 13(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 

8 (47 U.S.C. 163(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following: 

10 ‘‘(4) CONSIDERING SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED

11 INDIVIDUALS.—In assessing the state of competition 

12 under subsection (b)(1) and regulatory barriers 

13 under subsection (b)(3), the Commission, with the 

14 input of the Office of Communications Business Op15 portunities of the Commission, shall consider market 

16 entry barriers for socially disadvantaged individuals 

17 in the communications marketplace in accordance 

18 with the national policy under section 257(b).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 21, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5567 

AN ACT 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to remarketplace report under section 13 of such Act. advantaged individuals in the communications to consider market entry barriers for socially dis- quire the Federal Communications Commission
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5459 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5459

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 11, 2020

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to correct a land ownership 
  error within the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park, 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 ``Rocky Mountain National Park 
Ownership Correction Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 
        approximately 0.18 acres of land depicted as ``TR04-168-1'' on 
        the map.
            (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Rocky 
        Mountain National Park Proposed Forsyth Family Land Exchange'', 
        numbered 121/154,326, and dated June 2019.
            (3) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means 
        the approximately 0.18 acres of land depicted as ``TR04-169'' 
        on the map.
            (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.

SEC. 3. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK LAND EXCHANGE.

    (a) Authorization of Exchange.--To correct a longstanding land 
ownership error, if the owner of the non-Federal land offers to convey 
to the Secretary all right, title, and interest of the owner in and to 
the non-Federal land, the Secretary shall convey to the owner of the 
non-Federal land, subject to valid existing rights, all right, title, 
and interest of the United States in and to the Federal land.
    (b) Valuation.--The value of the Federal land and the non-Federal 
land to be exchanged under this Act shall be considered to be of equal 
value.
    (c) Administration.--The non-Federal land acquired by the Secretary 
under this section shall be administered by the Secretary as part of 
Rocky Mountain National Park.
    (d) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and available 
for inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 10, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<HTML>
<head>
<TITLE>CONSENT</TITLE>
</head>
<body bgcolor=white>
<font FACE="Courier New" SIZE="2">

<p align="right"></font><strong>
                                                                          EXHIBIT 23.1


<p align="center">
                                 INDEPENDENT  AUDITORS' CONSENT</P>
</strong>


<P>We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-8316 on
Forms S-8 and S-3, Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement No. 333-00883 on
Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-48023 on Form S-3, Post-Effective Amendment
No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-47835 on Form S-3, Post-Effective Amendment
No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-33147 on Form S-3, Amendment No. 1 to
Registration Statement No. 333-11779 on Form S-3, Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement No. 333-77595 and Registration Statement Nos. 33-20226, 33-23699, 33-33571, 33-
41330, 33-81914, 333-04041, 333-86875 and 333-61549 on Form S-8 of our report dated
February 28, 2000 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sigma Designs, Inc. for
the year ended January 31, 2000.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP</P>
<P>San Jose, California<BR>
April 26, 2000</P>


<br>
<br>
<br>
<HR WIDTH="85%">
<br>
<br>
<br>


</body>
</HTML>
#### § 24.181 Use of sugar.

Only sugar, as defined in § 24.10, may be used in the production of standard wine. The quantity of sugar used will be determined either by measuring the increase in volume or by considering that each 13.5 pounds of pure dry sugar results in a volumetric increase of one gallon.

(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1383, as amended, 1384, as amended, 1385, as amended, 1387, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5382, 5383, 5384, 5392))

[T.D. ATF-299, 55 FR 24989, June 19, 1990, as amended by T.D. ATF-312, 56 FR 31078, July 9, 1991]
Editorial Note on Part 26
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear by T.D. ATF-451, 66 FR 21668, 21669, May 1, 2001.

§ 26.105 Prepayment of tax—release of beer. ( a ) *Action by brewer.* Where the beer is to be withdrawn from bonded storage after payment of the computed tax the brewer shall enter the amount of such computed tax on all copies of TTB Form 2900 (5100.21) and execute the statement that such tax is being prepaid. The brewer shall then prepare TTB Form 5000.25 in duplicate and send the original with all copies of TTB Form 2900 (5100.21) and the remittance in full for the tax, to the appropriate TTB officer.
( b ) *Action by appropriate TTB officer.* On receipt of TTB Forms 2900 (5100.21) and 5000.25, and remittance covering prepayment of tax, the appropriate TTB officer shall execute the receipt on TTB Form 5000.25 and execute the report of prepaid taxes on all copies of TTB Form 2900 (5100.21). The appropriate TTB officer shall then retain the originals of TTB Forms 2900 (5110.21) and 5000.25 and forward the remaining copies of TTB Form 2900 (5100.21) in accordance with the instructions of the form.
( c ) *Action by revenue agent.* On receipt of TTB Form 2900 (5100.21) executed by the appropriate TTB officer to show receipt of TTB Form 5000.25 and remittance, the revenue agent shall execute the report of release on the TTB Form 2900 (5100.21) and release the beer for the purpose authorized on the form. The completed TTB Form 2900 (5100.21) shall be distributed according to the instructions on the form.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1512-0149 and 1512-0497) [T.D. ATF-277, 53 FR 45268, Nov. 9, 1988]
§ 75.609 Comply with safety and health standards. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70332 , Aug. 29, 2024.
In planning for and designing facilities, a grantee shall observe: ( a ) The standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-576) (See 36 CFR part 1910); and
( b ) State and local codes, to the extent that they are more stringent.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
2. i * (- ., - i .,. zir . Guy Turnd

r CoIioty.AwJitoT Dentoni Texas

. Dear Xii ‘T&nor:

puestion:

v+riter that it 13 excluni-wand the only method by which typwritcrs may bc purchssed. Upon pursuln~ kxticle 389Qb further,we find t!ldt al.1 such.nrticles

provided for therein Inust bo purc!msad under the provisions of Article lG59, Re-‘., Ms. Gi$ Turner, January 13, 1939, Pase 2 '

. i ,.-., vised,CivilStatutes of Texas, 1925,

*

. Seotion 2 of Arti 3899b provldcs: "Suitableof&as and stationeryand blanks ~,' .nsco%sary

in the pe?dormanceof their duties may :inthe dtscretionof the Comissicners Court also .b.e furnished tQ resident giotrict Judge, resident District and County .kttorncye, County Superinten- .donts and County Surveyors,end may be paid for. ori order of t.hc

Comissionera Court out oi’ the County Treasury.lT . Ih'the absence df statutoryauthority,you are ,respeotfullp

advised that the oomissioners* court has no authority to gurohaso an addin. mchins or typewriterfor the use of the couuty schoal superintendent and pay for the sameout of the general fwdr X'ro~ain Trustins that the foregoin answers your inquiry, .' Very truly yours

. hTTOX~:Y GIX?W,L OF T3:XRS

hPi?ROVED:
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Beacon Power Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, F. William Capp, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ F. William Capp

F. William Capp

Chief Executive Officer

 

February 17, 2006
###### Editorial Note on Part 26

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear by T.D. ATF-451, 66 FR 21668, 21669, May 1, 2001.

#### § 26.272 General requirements.

Except as provided in § 26.273, every person, other than a tourist, bringing liquors into the United States from the Virgin Islands shall keep such records and render reports of the physical receipt and disposition of such liquors as are required to be kept by a wholesale or retail dealer, as applicable, under the provisions of part 31 of this chapter. Any importer who is responsible for release of the liquors from customs custody and who does not take physical possession of the liquors shall keep commercial records reflecting such release; such records shall identify the kind and quantity of the liquors released, the name and address of the person receiving the liquors from customs custody, and shall be filed chronologically by release dates. Records and reports will not be required under this part with respect of liquors while in customs custody.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1512-0352)

(72 Stat. 1342, 1345; 26 U.S.C. 5114, 5124)

[T.D. ATF-2, 37 FR 22739, Oct. 21, 1972. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-172, 49 FR 14943, Apr. 16, 1984. Redesignated and amended by T.D. ATF-459, 66 FR 38552, July 25, 2001; T.D. TTB-25, 70 FR 19883, Apr. 15, 2005]
November 17 2009
#### UNION BOND AND MORTGAGE COMPANY, Respondent, v. BROWN, Appellant.

(267 N. W. 228.)

(File No. 7924.

Opinion filed May 26, 1936.)

*429*Sterling, Clark & Grigsby,*of Redfield, and *W. M. Potts,*of Mobridge, for Appellant.

*Longstaff & Gardner,*of Huron, for Defendant PI. P. Brown.

PER CURIAM.

For a former opinion in this case, see same title, 64 S. D. 352, 266 N. W. 720. Following the filing of the prior decision which dismissed the appeal as to the defendant H. P. Brown, in so far as it purported to be an appeal from the order overruling the motion for a new trial, the defendant A. H. Brown moved this court to remand the record to the circuit court that he might serve notice of intention to move for a new trial, transcript, and specifications of error upon the defendant H. P. Brown, and thereby lay the foundation for appealing’ from an order denying a motion for a new trial so far as the defendant H. P. Brown is concerned. The facts are disclosed in the former opinion with the exception that it now appears that defendant H. P. Brown never served notice of entry of judgment upon the defendant A. H. Brown. A. H. Brown maintains that, until he has been served with notice of the entry of judgment by the defendant H. P. Brown, the time provided in section 2337, R. C. 1919, within which a notice of intention to move for a new trial must be served, does not commence to run against him so far as defendant H. P. Brown is concerned. It stands conceded that the defendant A. H. Brown was served with notice of entry of judgment by the plaintiff and thereafter served notice of intention and took other necessary steps to move for a new trial as against the plaintiff. Thereafter A. H. Brown served notice of appeal upon the plaintiff, and also upon H. P. Brown.

 We are convinced that the above state of facts constitutes “knowledge plus conduct” on the part of A. H. Brown, which constituted a waiver of the service of the notice of entry of judgment by the defendant H. P. Brown within the meaning of Fuller v. Anderson, 50 S. D. 568, 210 N. W. 992.

In view of the fact that A. H. Brown has asked that the record *430be remanded only for the purpose of making a motion for a new trial and perfecting an appeal therefrom, should the decision thereon ¡be adverse as to him, and this court being of the opinion that the lower court has no jurisdiction at this time to entertain such motion because of the limitation provided in section 2557, R. C. 1919, tire application for the remand of the record will be, and the same hereby is, in all things denied.

All the Judges concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 1,511

 1,670

 1,704

 1,619

 1,620

 1,536

 1,424

 1,379

 1,362

 1,373

 1,411

 1,499

 1,666

 1,826

 1,963

 2,217

 1,810

 1,750

 1,831

 1,872

 1,666

 1,509

 1,453

 1,388

 1,324

 1,378

 1,354

 1,607

 1,786

 2,218

 2,727

 425

 462

 526

 533

 514

 620

 671

 690

 704

 717

 715

 732

 773

 802

 810

 784

 812

 829

 805

 864

 827

 825

 798

 800

 792

 785

 765

 760

 757

 775

 782

 687

 788

 885

 881

 925

 937

 909

 916

 927

 922

 928

 956

 1,015

 1,082

 1,099

 1,244

 1,143

 1,134

 1,146

 1,167

 1,083

 1,044

 1,021

 1,027

 961

 928

 895

 921

 969

 1,085

 1,246

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 4, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY 

AVG

MEAN

 5,982

 6,450

 6,999

 7,527

 8,113

 8,677

 9,196

 9,714

 10,235

 10,681

 11,180

 11,704

 12,239

 12,758

 13,170

 13,626

 13,884

 14,137

 14,358

 14,588

 14,762

 14,890

 14,984

 15,089

 15,122

 15,094

 14,974

 14,813

 14,683

 14,524

 14,627

 427

 461

 500

 538

 580

 620

 657

 694

 731

 763

 799

 836

 874

 911

 941

 973

 992

 1,010

 1,026

 1,042

 1,054

 1,064

 1,070

 1,078

 1,080

 1,078

 1,070

 1,058

 1,049

 1,037

 1,045

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

JERSEY POINT TOP ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1465

RONALD E. JARMUTH; ANGELA J. JARMUTH,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

JAMES J. CULPEPPER, Individually and in his

Capacity as Family Law Master and Judge for

the Family Law Court of Manongalia, West

Virginia; BRIAN KROLCZYK, Individually and in

his Capacity as Acting Director of Clinical

Services for Valley Community Mental Health;

VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH

CENTER, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Valley Health Care

System; ELLIOTT MAYNARD, In his Capacity as

Chief Judge of the West Virginia Supreme Court

of Appeals,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief

District Judge. (CA-04-81-IMK)

Submitted: October 3, 2005 Decided: November 4, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald E. Jarmuth, Angela J. Jarmuth, Appellants Pro Se. Stephanie

Ann Jones, Jeffery Dale Taylor, ROSE PADDEN & PETTY, L.C.,

Fairmont, West Virginia; Vanessa Lynn Goddard, STEPTOE & JOHNSON,
- 2 -

Clarksburg, West Virginia; Jacquelyn J. Core, STEPTOE & JOHNSON,

Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Ronald E. Jarmuth and Angela J. Jarmuth appeal the

district court’s orders dismissing their civil rights claims. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Jarmuth v. Culpepper, No. CA-04-81-IMK (N.D. W. Va.

Mar. 31, 2005). We deny the Jarmuths’ motion opposing the

appearance of Appellees’ counsel as the Jarmuths failed to

establish that West Virginia requires the West Virginia Attorney

General to represent judicial officers. See State ex rel.

McGraw v. Burton, 569 S.E.2d 99, 105 n.5 (W. Va. 2002) (stating

that its holding that state officials should be represented by the

Attorney General only applied to executive branch officials and not

legislative or judicial officials). We also deny the Jarmuths’

motion to strike the Appellees’ response brief. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear by T.D. ATF-235, 66 FR 5473, Jan. 19, 2001, and T.D. ATF-463 and T.D. ATF-462, 66 FR 42733, 42736, Aug. 15, 2001.

#### § 20.221 General.

A permittee may terminate liability for payment of tax, prescribed by law, when specially denatured spirits or recovered alcohol are destroyed in accordance with this subpart.
Editorial Note on Part 25
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear by T.D. ATF-437, 66 FR 5478, 5479, Jan. 19, 2001.

§ 25.101 Disapproval of bonds or consents of surety. ( a ) *Reasons for disapproval.* The appropriate TTB officer may disapprove a bond or consent of surety if the individual, firm, partnership, corporation, or association giving the bond or consent of surety, or if any of the above entities owning, controlling or actively participating in the management of a business giving a bond as a brewer, has been previously convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction of: ( 1 ) Any fraudulent noncompliance with any provision of law of the United States if it related to internal revenue or customs taxation of distilled spirits, wines or beer, or if the offense shall have been compromised with the individual, firm, partnership, corporation, or association on payment of penalties or otherwise; or
( 2 ) Any felony under a law of any State or the District of Columbia, or the United States, prohibiting the manufacture, sale, importation, or transportation of distilled spirits, wines, beer, or other intoxicating liquor.
( b ) *Appeal of disapproval.* If the bond or consent of surety is disapproved, the person giving the bond or consent of surety may appeal the disapproval to the appropriate TTB officer, who will grant a hearing in the matter if requested by the applicant or brewer, and whose decision will be final.
(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1394, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5551))
[T.D. ATF-224, 51 FR 7673, Mar. 5, 1986, as amended by T.D. ATF-437, 66 FR 5479, Jan. 19, 2001]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TRAVIS RAY THOMPSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ALVAREZ; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-17034

D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00572-AWIBAM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Travis Ray Thompson appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various

constitutional violations occurring at three different prisons against numerous

prison officials and staff over a seven-year period. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

DEC 04 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for

failure to comply with court orders. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 2002). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Thompson’s

action because, despite its warnings, Thompson repeatedly failed to comply with

the district court’s orders to comply with the pleading and joinder requirements

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20. See id. at 642 (discussing

the five factors for determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply

with a court order). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thompson’s 

motion for appointment of counsel because Thompson did not demonstrate

exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.

2009) (setting forth the standard of review and explaining exceptional

circumstances requirement). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thompson’s motion

for preliminary injunction to transfer him into federal custody because the district

court lacked authority to issue an injunction directed at a non-party. See Zenith

Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969) (concluding

that it was error to enter an injunction against a non-party); Alliance for the Wild

2 13-17034
Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of

review). Thompson did not demonstrate that the limited exception to this rule,

which allows injunctions to bind non-parties who are “in active concert or

participation” with the parties, applied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C).

In light of our conclusion regarding the district court’s dismissal for failure

to comply with court orders, we do not consider Thompson’s contentions

concerning the merits of his case. 

We reject Thompson’s arguments relating to judicial bias. 

Thompson’s motion to add newly discovered evidence to the record on

appeal, filed on December 4, 2013, is denied. 

AFFIRMED.

3 13-17034
#### Manchester Memorial Hospital *v.*Norman E. Whitney et al.

*Norman E. Whitney,*pro se, in support of the petition.

*Paul F. McAlenney,*in opposition.

Submitted November 30

decided December 8, 1970

The petition by the defendant for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.