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

[House Report 107-204]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-204

======================================================================

 
WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO THE 
  SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES 
  COMMITTEE

                                _______
                                

 September 12 (legislative day, September 11), 2001.--Referred to the 
                House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mrs. Myrick, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 236]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 236, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to any special rule reported on the legislative day of 
September 13, 2001, providing for consideration or disposition 
of a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for 
fiscal year 2001 for additional disaster assistance, for anti-
terrorism initiatives, for assistance in the recovery from the 
tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001, and for other 
purposes, any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, 
or any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference 
thereon.

                                  

```
### [§411g. Repealed. Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title VI, §631(c), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1460]

Section, added Pub. L. 100–180, div. A, title VI, §614(a)(1), Dec. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 1093; amended Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title VI, §624(a), Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 1984; Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title VI, §653(c)(1), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1462, related to travel and transportation allowances: transportation incident to voluntary extensions of overseas tours of duty.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2207

To restore the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

over amusement park rides which are at a fixed site, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2003

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. PASCRELL, 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mrs. MALONEY, and Mr. 

TIERNEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To restore the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission over amusement park rides which are at 

a fixed site, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Amusement 

5 Park Ride Safety Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 2207 IH 

1 SEC. 2. JURISDICTION OVER FIXED SITE AMUSEMENT 

2 RIDES. 

3 Section 3(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act 

4 (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘, and 

5 which is not permanently fixed to a site. Such term does 

6 not include such a device which is permanently fixed to 

7 a site.’’ and inserting a period. 

8 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

9 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Con10 sumer Product Safety Commission $500,000 for each fis11 cal year to enable the Commission to carry out the Con12 sumer Product Safety Act as amended by this Act.

Æ
### §70502. Purposes

The purposes of the corporation are—

(1) to receive and hold property, including by gift, devise, or grant, and to invest, administer, and dispose of the property without restrictions applicable to trustees or trust funds;

(2) to apply its income and any part of its principal exclusively to educational, charitable, scientific, or literary purposes—

(A) to advance the science of jurisprudence;

(B) to uphold high standards for the Federal judiciary and attorneys representing the United States Government;

(C) to promote and improve the administration of justice, including the study of means for the improved handling of the legal business of the departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Government;

(D) to facilitate the cultivation and diffusion of knowledge and understanding of the law and the promotion of the study of the law and the science of jurisprudence and research in jurisprudence, through the maintenance of a law library, the establishment of seminars, lectures, and studies devoted to the law, and the publication of addresses, essays, treatises, reports, and other literary works by students, practitioners, and teachers of the law; and

(E) to provide for the acquisition, preservation, and exhibition of rare books and documents, sculptures, paintings, and other objects of art and historical interest relating to the law, the courts, and the legal profession; and

(3) to do any other acts necessary or incident to the accomplishment of these purposes.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1351.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 70502 | 36:573. | Aug. 24, 1954, ch. 911, §3, 68 Stat. 797. |

Section

Before clause (1), the word "objects" is omitted as included in "purposes".

Clause (1) is substituted for 36:573(1) to eliminate unnecessary words.

In clause (2), the words "and if the corporation so decides, all or" and "or any of them" are omitted as unnecessary. In subclause (D), the words "in jurisprudence" are substituted for "therein" for clarity.

In clause (3), the words "any other acts" are substituted for "any and all things" for consistency in the revised title.
#### Margaret M. Travena, Respondent, v. Interstate Busses, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a bus line negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6333** 

STEVEN STUART MARKS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARK, Director, Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Glen E. Conrad , Chief District Judge. ( 7:15

- cv - 00073

- GEC

- RSB )

Submitted : November 30, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Steven Stuart Marks, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Steven Stuart Marks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U. S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
t his standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. a t 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Board Coverage Decision

2010-44.5

Durham Union Station Company % Norfolk Southern

Corporation

Employer Coverage Terminated*

No Decision Published

BA # 4516
§ 842.1006 Mandatory separation. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the mandatory separation provisions of 5 U.S.C. 8425 apply to customs and border protection officers, including those in secondary positions. A mandatory separation under 5 U.S.C. 8425 is not an adverse action under part 752 of this chapter or a removal action under part 359 of this chapter.
( b ) Exemptions from mandatory separation are subject to the conditions set forth under 5 U.S.C. 8425. An exemption may be granted at the sole discretion of the head of the employing agency or by the President in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 8425(c).
( c ) In the event that an employee is separated mandatorily under 5 U.S.C. 8425, or is separated for optional retirement under 5 U.S.C. 8412(d) or (e), and OPM finds that all or part of the minimum service required for entitlement to immediate annuity was in a position that did not meet the requirements of a primary or secondary position and the conditions set forth in this subpart or, if applicable, in part 831 of this chapter, such separation will be considered erroneous.
( d ) The customs and border protection officer mandatory separation provisions of 5 U.S.C. 8425 do not apply to an individual first appointed as a customs and border protection officer before July 6, 2008.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Philip Davis, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ.
# United States Court **of Appeals** 
**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10925 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee
**,**

versus

**Simon Galarza,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 4:21

- CR

- 107

- 1

Before **Smith, Dennis,** and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Simon Galarza

has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Galarza has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant por

-

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum

stances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 11, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10925 Document: 00516503887 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2022No. 21

- 10925

2 tions of the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

pre sents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion

to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further respo nsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 21-10925 Document: 00516503887 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2022
# **UPDATEOF COMMERCIAL NEWS**

## January 1, 2000 – January 15, 2000

 

# Prepared byAlexander Gordienko

BISNIS Representative

Nizhny Novgorod, Russia 

 

Y2K Problem in the Nizhny Novgorod region

 

Regional providers of telecommunication services,energy, water supply companies, air transportation and railroad operators hadnot reported any failures or faults in their computer networks and systemsafter January 1, 2000 which could cause disruption of their activities.  Local banks did not experience anycomputer problems either and went back to normal operations on January 10,2000. 

 

Volga-Vyatka Territorial Office for Bankruptcy

 

A new branch office of the Russian Federal Service forBankruptcy was established in Nizhny Novgorod. An area of responsibility of theVolga-Vyatka Territorial Office includes the Nizhny Novgorod, Vladimir, RyazanRegions as well as the Republics of Mariy El, Mordovia and Chuvashia. 

 

GRP Forecast for 2000

 

According to a projection for 2000 by the NizhnyNovgorod Regional Department of Economics and Forecast, the gross regionalproduct(GRP) is expected to grow by 1.5 percent in comparison to 1999. However,the projected rate will not be high enough to cover a 5 percent downsize of theGRP in 1998.
#### John Passamano, Respondent, v. James Bruno, Appellant.

All concur. (Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in an action for damages for malicious prosecution.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.
H. R. 2119

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To provide for the conveyance of Federal lands, improvements, equipment, and

resource materials at the Oxford Research Station in Granville County, North

Carolina, to the State of North Carolina.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, OXFORD RESEARCH STATION, GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

(a) CONVEYANCE REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall

convey, without consideration, to the State of North Carolina all

right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel

of Federal real property consisting of approximately 4.28 acres

and administered as part of the Oxford Research Station in Granville County, North Carolina. The conveyance shall include all

improvements, equipment, and resource materials at the research

station.

(b) DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY.—The exact acreage and

legal description of the real property to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the

Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the State.

(c) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may

require such additional terms and conditions in connection with

the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary considers

appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
```

[House Document 107-131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                     

107th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 107-131

 
REPORT ON MILITARY ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESPOND TO THE THREAT OF TERRORISM

                               __________

                             COMMUNICATION

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              TRANSMITTING

A REPORT, CONSISTENT WITH THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION AND PUBLIC LAW 107-
   40, TO HELP ENSURE THAT THE CONGRESS IS KEPT INFORMED ON MILITARY 
          ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESPOND TO THE THREAT OF TERRORISM

October 9, 2001.--Referred to the Committee on International Relations 
                       and ordered to be printed
                                           The White House,
                                       Washington, October 9, 2001.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: At approximately 12:30 p.m. (EDT) on 
October 7, 2001, on my orders, U.S. Armed Forces began combat 
action in Afghanistan against Al Qaida terrorists and their 
Taliban supporters. This military action is a part of our 
campaign against terrorism and is designed to disrupt the use 
of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations.
    We are responding to the brutal September 11 attacks on our 
territory, our citizens, and our way of life, and to the 
continuing threat of terrorist acts against the United States 
and our friends and allies. This follows the deployment of 
various combat-equipped and combat support forces to a number 
of locations in the Central and Pacific Command areas of 
operations, as I reported to the Congress on September 24, to 
prepare for the campaign to prevent and deter terrorism.
    I have taken these actions pursuant to my constitutional 
authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations as Commander in 
Chief and Chief Executive. It is not possible to know at this 
time either the duration of combat operations or the scope and 
duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to 
counter the terrorist threat to the United States. As I have 
stated previously, it is likely that the American campaign 
against terrorism will be lengthy. I will direct such 
additional measures as necessary in exercise of our right to 
self-defense and to protect U.S. citizens and interests.
    I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep 
the Congress informed, consistent with the War Powers 
Resolution and Public Law 107-40. Officials of my 
Administration and I have been communicating regularly with the 
leadership and other members of Congress, and we will continue 
to do so. I appreciate the continuing support of the Congress, 
including its enactment of Public Law 107-40, in these actions 
to protect the security of the United States of America and its 
citizens, civilian and military, here and abroad.
            Sincerely,
                                                    George W. Bush.

                                

```
#### In the Matter of Thomas Costigan, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

January 26, 1948.

*Einar Chrystie*for petitioner.

Respondent in person.

*Per*Curiam.

Respondent has been found guilty by an official referee of the charge of converting $284.45 in funds belonging to his client. He made full restitution while the proceedings *194were pending before the Grievance Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. During the forty years he has practiced, no other charges have been preferred against him. In other matters handled for this client, the conduct of respondent was satisfactory. He was ill during the period he withheld the moneys in controversy. Under all the circumstances, he should be suspended from the practice of the law for a period of three months with leave to apply for reinstatement at the expiration of that term upon proof of his compliance with the conditions incorporated in the order.

Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for three months.
### §60903. Full reinvestigation

#### (a) In general

The agency shall conduct a full reinvestigation of the cold case murder at issue if the review of the case file required by section 60901 of this title concludes that a full reinvestigation of such cold case murder would result in probative investigative leads.

#### (b) Reinvestigation

A full reinvestigation shall include analyzing all evidence regarding the cold case murder at issue for the purpose of developing probative investigative leads or a likely perpetrator.

#### (c) Reviewer

A reinvestigation required under subsection (a) shall not be conducted by a person who previously investigated the murder at issue.

#### (d) Prohibition on multiple concurrent reviews

Only one full reinvestigation shall be undertaken at any one time with respect to the same cold case murder victim.

(Pub. L. 117–164, §4, Aug. 3, 2022, 136 Stat. 1359.)
### 6A, izo-01/ (a Rr, AWt Acos-Vo-vr_\rriC HI-15*



### T.s A^^ ^OriiVfc V v»7«r iltm® ^A^riAd^^ K* \t\>lfc4£o(t;*e*IM3s\~r 3-g?-

U/voj^S. {yd/*^ 

### 3p»n ^i5- 2J.0/5 **Wlir
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DOD.

# ACTION:

Notice of closed meetings.

# SUMMARY:

The CNO Executive Panel will hear classified briefings and provide consensus advice to the Chief of Naval Operations on “The Navy Role in Near East Security.” The Panel will also receive CNO direction regarding future studies to be conducted.

# DATES:

Meetings will be held on November 18-19, 2004, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meetings will be held at the Center for Naval Analyses, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Commander Gary Herbert, CNO Executive Panel, (703) 681-4941 or Commander Kevin Wilson, CNO Executive Panel, (703) 681-6206.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), these matters constitute classified information that is specifically authorized by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and are, in fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code.

Dated: November 5, 2004.

J.H. Wagshul,

Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 04-25182 Filed 11-9-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
#### § 847.904 What are Present Value Factors?

Present value factors have the same meaning in this subpart as they do in 5 CFR 847.602.
§ 890.1043 Effect of debarment on a provider. ( a ) *FEHBP payments prohibited.* A debarred provider is not eligible to receive payment, directly or indirectly, from FEHBP funds for items or services furnished to a covered individual on or after the effective date of the debarment. Also, a provider shall not accept an assignment of a claim for items or services furnished to a covered individual during the period of debarment. These restrictions shall remain in effect until the provider is reinstated by OPM.
( b ) *Governmentwide effect.* Debarment precludes a provider from participating in all other Federal agencies' procurement and nonprocurement programs and activities, as required by section 2455 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-355). Other agencies may grant a waiver or exception under their own regulations, to permit a provider to participate in their programs, notwithstanding the OPM debarment.
( c ) *Civil or criminal liability.* A provider may be subject to civil monetary penalties under this subpart or criminal liability under other Federal statutes for knowingly filing claims, causing claims to be filed, or accepting payment from FEHBP carriers for items or services furnished to a covered individual during a period of debarment .