alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1502

To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to provide that 

certain funds treated as local funds under that Act shall be used to 

provide additional funding for programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2003

Mr. TIERNEY (for himself, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. LEE, Mr. MEEHAN, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. 

PAYNE, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. CASE, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. FROST, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. 

GILLMOR, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. GRIJALVA, 

Mr. REGULA, Mr. NADLER, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, 

and Mr. JACKSON of Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

to provide that certain funds treated as local funds under 

that Act shall be used to provide additional funding 

for programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

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

•HR 1502 IH 

1 SECTION 1. USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS UNDER THE INDIVID2 UALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT. 

3 Section 613(a)(2)(C) of the Individuals with Disabil4 ities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1413(a)(2)(C)) is amend5 ed—

6 (1) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); 

7 and 

8 (2) by inserting after clause (i) the following: 

9 ‘‘(ii) If a local educational agency 

10 chooses to utilize the authority under 

11 clause (i) to treat as local funds up to 20 

12 percent of the amount of funds the agency 

13 receives under this part that exceeds the 

14 amount it received under this part for the 

15 previous fiscal year, then the agency shall 

16 use those local funds to provide additional 

17 funding for programs under the Elemen18 tary and Secondary Education Act of 

19 1965, including, but not limited to, pro20 grams that address school safety, teacher 

21 quality and professional development, be22 fore and after school learning opportuni23 ties, comprehensive school reform and lit24 eracy, class size reduction, school construc25 tion and modernization, or related edu-
3

•HR 1502 IH 

1 cation programs authorized under Federal 

2 or State law.’’.

Æ
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the “ExchangeAct”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Robert P. Akins, Chief Executive Officer of Cymer,Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

1.     TheRegistrant’s annual report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, towhich this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and

 

2.     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

**In Witness Whereof**,the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 2nd day of August, 2006.

 

 
| /s/Robert P. Akins                       |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert P. Akins, Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, isnot deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of Cymer, Inc. under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
#### Thomas N. Bayles, Respondent, v. Frederick J. Wagner, Appellant, Impleaded with Others, Defendants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 04-042 April 16, 2004

NRC ANNOUNCES OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION TO RENEW

OPERATING LICENSES FOR POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced the opportunity to request a hearing on an

application from Nuclear Management Company, LLC, to renew the operating licenses for Units 1 and

2 of the Point Beach nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years.

The Point Beach plant is located near Two Rivers, Wisconsin. The current operating licenses

for Units 1 and 2 expire on October 5, 2010, and March 8, 2013, respectively.

NRC staff have determined that Nuclear Management Company has submitted sufficient

information for the agency to formally “docket,” or file, the application. Docketing the application

does not preclude requesting additional information as the review proceeds, nor does it indicate

whether the Commission will grant or deny the application.

A notice of NRC’s determination and the opportunity to request a hearing was published in the

Federal Register on April 13. The deadline to request a hearing is June 14. By that date, petitions

must be filed by anyone whose interest may be affected by the license renewal and who wishes to

participate as a party in the proceeding. A request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene

must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. They may also be

submitted by fax to 301-415-1101, or e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov, or delivered to the NRC

Public Document Room at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

Copies of petitions should also be sent to:

-- Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

20555-0001, or by fax, 301-415-3725, or e-mail, OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov ; and

-- Mr. David R. Lewis, Esq., Shaw Pittman, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037

(attorney for the licensee).

Additional information about the opportunity for a hearing may be found in the Federal

Register notice. A copy of the license renewal application is available on the NRC web site at this
address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/point-beach.html . The

document is also available for inspection at the NRC’s Public Document Room in Rockville,

Maryland, and at the Lester Public Library, 1001 Adams Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin, 54241.

For more information, contact Michael J. Morgan, License Renewal Project Manager, Division

of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Mail Stop 011-F1, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-2232.

###
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Andres Bustillo, M.D., Plaintiff,

v.

Twin City Fire Insurance Company, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-23133-Civ-Scola

Order Granting Temporary Stay

Defendant Twin City Fire Insurance Company seeks an unopposed stay 

of discovery. (ECF No. 11.) Twin City submits a stay is warranted based on its

pending motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court has taken a “‘preliminary 

peek’ at the merits of the motion” and finds the issue raised related to the virus 

exclusion in the insurance policy at issue here appears to have a strong 

likelihood of being granted. See Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 12-61528-CIV, 

2012 WL 5471793, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2012) (Scola, J.) (quoting Feldman v. 

Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652–53 (M.D.Fla.1997)). If the motion to dismiss is 

granted in its entirety, which at this preliminary stage appears likely, the need 

for discovery in this proceeding will be eliminated. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff 

Andres Bustillo, M.D. does not oppose the stay. 

The Court thus finds a stay warranted and grants the Defendants’ 

motion (ECF No. 11). Discovery is accordingly stayed until this Court issues 

its order on the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. If the motion is ultimately 

denied, (1) discovery must immediately move forward; and (2) the parties must 

file an amended joint-scheduling report within seven days of the entry of any

order denying the motion to dismiss.

Done and ordered, at Miami, Florida, August 28, 2020.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-23133-RNS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2020 Page 1 of 1
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-05-008 March 14, 2005

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC TO DISCUSS 2004 PERFORMANCE AT SUMMER NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff are scheduled to meet with South Carolina Electric &

Gas officials March 23, to discuss the NRC’s annual assessment of safety performance at the Summer

nuclear power plant, located near Jenkinsville, S.C. The period covered is the calendar year 2004.

The 3 p.m. meeting at the Summer plant’s Nuclear Learning Center auditorium is open to

public observation. Before the session ends, NRC staff will be available to answer public questions on

the plant’s safety performance, as well as the agency’s role in ensuring safe operation of the facility.

“Each year the NRC staff rates the performance of the Summer plant and all of the nation’s

other commercial nuclear power plants,” NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. “This

meeting gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the company, with local officials and with

residents near the plant. Our aim is to make this information available to the public and answer any

questions people may have about our oversight.”

A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the

plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the

NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/sum_2004q4.pdf .

Overall, the Summer plant operated safely during 2004. The NRC uses color-coded inspection

findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with “green”

and increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues

involved. Because all inspection findings and performance indicators for the plant during 2004 were

classified as “green,” Summer will receive the baseline, or normal, level of inspections during 2005.

Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by

inspection specialists from the Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville,

Md. In addition to the baseline inspections in 2005, the NRC plans safety inspections concerning

pressurizer penetration and steam space piping connections at the Summer plant.

 Current information for the Summer plant is available on the NRC web site at:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SUM/sum_chart.html .

 ###
### Part A—Marine Debris Foundation
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00210-CR

James H. LOWE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CR-5832

Honorable Angus McGinty, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 13, 2012

DISMISSED

On April 24, 2012, this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed 

pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the 

right of appeal was made part of the appellate record on or before May 24, 2012. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 175-76 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 2003, order). Appellant did not respond. The record does not contain a certification 

that shows the defendant has the right of appeal; to the contrary, the trial court certification in the 
04-12-00210-CR

- 2 -

record states “this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of 

appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not 

exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; 

therefore, the clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification that defendant has no right of 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
### §1232c. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–340, §16, as added Pub. L. 115–44, title III, §315(a), Aug. 2, 2017, 131 Stat. 948, was redesignated and transferred to section 70022 of Title 46, Shipping, by Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8508, Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4755, effective upon the enactment of section 401 of Pub. L. 115–282 and notwithstanding section 402(e) of Pub. L. 115–282, which repealed this chapter.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 13 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BERNARD HORNE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROY ROMER, Governor of the State of

Colorado,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 97-1234

(D.C. No. 92-K-1470)

(District of Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of the remaining claim in a pro se civil rights

complaint. Although Mr. Horne raises issues on matters other than the order of dismissal
- 2 -

dated May 20, 1997, our appellate jurisdiction is circumscribed to the contents of the

notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) (the notice of appeal must designate the order

appealed from). Inasmuch as the notice filed by Mr. Horne designates the order of

May 20 as the order appealed from, we have no jurisdiction over matters beyond that

order.

The district court’s order is predicated upon a finding that the only issue remaining

in Mr. Horne’s complaint after previous rulings of the court was a request for injunctive

relief from conditions in an institution to which Mr. Horne was no longer confined. The

court properly reasoned that request was moot. Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401

(1975). The dismissal was not erroneous because no justiciable controversy remained to

be litigated.

AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 657 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 657

 To modify the presumption of service connection for veterans who were 
   exposed to herbicide agents while serving in the Armed Forces in 
        Thailand during the Vietnam era, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 2021

 Mr. Boozman (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. 
    Warren, Mr. Portman, Ms. Hassan, and Mr. Braun) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To modify the presumption of service connection for veterans who were 
   exposed to herbicide agents while serving in the Armed Forces in 
        Thailand during the Vietnam era, 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. MODIFICATION OF PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR 
              VETERANS WHO WERE EXPOSED TO HERBICIDE AGENTS WHILE 
              SERVING IN THE ARMED FORCES IN THAILAND DURING THE 
              VIETNAM ERA.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall ensure 
that if the Secretary creates a presumption of service connection 
between the occurrence of a disease and exposure to a herbicide agent 
while serving in the Armed Forces during the covered period at a 
military base in Thailand, such presumption also applies to exposure to 
a herbicide agent while serving in the Armed Forces during the covered 
period at any military base located in Thailand without regard to where 
on the base the veteran was located or what military job specialty the 
veteran performed.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Covered period.--The term ``covered period'' means the 
        period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on June 30, 
        1976.
            (2) Herbicide agent.--The term ``herbicide agent'' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 1116(a) of title 38, United 
        States Code.
            (3) Veteran.--The term ``veteran'' has the meaning given 
        such term in section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
#### Stickle, appellant, and Van Doren, respondent.

Decree unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Chancellor, reported in 9 *C. E. Green*331.
§ 359.902 Conditions of removal. ( a ) *Authority.* The agency may remove an appointee subject to this subpart at any time.
( b ) *Notice.* The agency shall notify the appointee in writing before the effective date of the removal.
( c ) *Placement rights.* An appointee covered by this subpart is not entitled to the placement rights provided for career appointees under subpart G of this part.
( d ) *Appeals.* Actions taken under this subpart are not appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board under 5 U.S.C. 7701.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1754 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1754

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
 amounts received on the sale of animals which are raised and sold as 
                    part of an educational program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2003

Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Goode, and Mr. Otter) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
 amounts received on the sale of animals which are raised and sold as 
                    part of an educational program.

    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 ``Agriculture Education Freedom Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR AMOUNTS RECEIVED ON SALE OF 
              ANIMALS WHICH ARE RAISED AND SOLD AS PART OF EDUCATIONAL 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items specifically excluded 
from gross income) is amended by inserting after section 139 the 
following new section:

``SEC. 139A. PROCEEDS OF SALE OF ANIMALS RAISED AND SOLD AS PART OF 
              EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM.

    ``In the case of an individual, gross income shall not include any 
gain from the sale of any animal which is raised and sold by such 
individual as part of such individual's participation in--
            ``(1) the 4-H program under the Cooperative State Research, 
        Education, and Extension Service of the Department of 
        Agriculture,
            ``(2) the Future Farmers of America,
            ``(3) any program of an organization described in section 
        501(c) and exempt from tax under section 501(a) which is 
        similar to such 4-H program or the Future Farmers of America, 
        or
            ``(4) any program of an educational organization described 
        in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii).''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such part III is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 139 the 
following new item:

                              ``Sec. 139A. Proceeds of sale of animals 
                                        raised and sold as part of 
                                        educational program.''
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to sales in taxable years ending after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1312.27 Top secret control. The EOP Security Officer serves as the Top Secret Control Officer (TSCO) for OMB. He will be assisted by the Alternate TSCOs in each division/office Holding Top Secret material. The ATSCOs will be responsible for the accountability and custodianship of Top Secret material within their divisions/offices. The provisions of this section do not apply to special intelligence material, which will be processed as prescribed by the controlling agency. ( a ) *Procedures.* All Top Secret material produced or received in OMB will be taken to the appropriate ATSCO for receipting, establishment of custodianship, issuance to the appropriate action officer, and, as appropriate, obtaining a receipt. Top Secret material in the custody of the TSCO or ATSCO will normally be segregated from other classified material and will be stored in a safe under his or her control. Such material will be returned to the appropriate ATSCO by action officers as soon as action is completed. OMB Form 87 will be used to establish custody, record distribution, routing, receipting and destruction of Top Secret material. Top Secret Access Record and Cover Sheet (Standard Form 703) will be attached to each Top Secret document while it is in the possession of OMB.
( b ) *Inventory.* The Associate Director (or Assistant Director) for Administration will notify each appropriate OMB office to conduct an inventory of its Top Secret material by May 1 each year. The head of each office will notify the EOP Security Officer when the inventory has been satisfactorily completed. Each Top Secret item will be examined to determine whether it can be downgraded or declassified, and the inventory will be adjusted accordingly. Discrepancies in the inventory, indicating loss or possible compromise, will be thoroughly investigated by the EOP Security Officer or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as appropriate. Each ATSCO will retain his/her division's inventory in accordance with the security procedures set forth in this regulation.