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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3673 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3673

To prohibit an increase in the compensation of Members of Congress from 
 taking effect unless Congress consents to the increase by concurrent 
                              resolution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 15, 2011

   Mr. Coffman of Colorado introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to 
  the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and Rules, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit an increase in the compensation of Members of Congress from 
 taking effect unless Congress consents to the increase by concurrent 
                              resolution.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING INCREASE IN MEMBER SALARIES WITHOUT CONSENT OF 
              CONGRESS.

    (a) Consent of Congress.--Section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Subject to 
        subparagraph (B)'' and inserting ``Subject to subparagraphs (B) 
        and (C)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
    ``(C) A percentage adjustment under subparagraph (A) may not take 
effect with respect to a calendar year unless, before January 1 of the 
year, Congress by concurrent resolution agrees that the percentage 
adjustment shall take effect. Each House shall vote on the adoption of 
such a concurrent resolution by a roll call vote.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to 2012 and each succeeding year.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jacob Wiener, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. Isidor Oliver, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Davis, JJ.
### §14053. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14053 was editorially reclassified as section 12523 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 460.18 Insulation ads. ( a ) If your ad gives an R-value, you must give the type of insulation and the thickness needed to get that R-value. Also, add this statement explaining R-values: “The higher the R-value, the greater the insulating power. Ask your seller for the fact sheet on R-values.”
( b ) If your ad gives a price, you must give the type of insulation, the R-value at a specific thickness, the statement explaining R-values in paragraph (a) of this section, and the coverage area for that thickness. If you give the price per square foot, you do not have to give the coverage area.
( c ) If your ad gives the thickness of your insulation, you must give its R-value at that thickness and the statement explaining R-values in paragraph (a) of this section.
( d ) If your ad compares one type of insulation to another, the comparison must be based on the same coverage areas. You must give the R-value at a specific thickness for each insulation, and the statement explaining R-values in paragraph (a) of this section. If you give the price of each insulation, you must also give the coverage area for the price and thickness shown. However, if you give the price per square foot, you do not have to give the coverage area.
( e ) The affirmative disclosure requirements in this section do not apply to television or radio advertisements or to space-constrained advertisements. For the purposes of this part, “space-constrained advertisement” means any communication made through interactive media (such as the internet, online services, and software, including but not limited to internet search results and banner ads) that has space, format, size or technological limitations or restrictions that prevent industry members from making disclosures required by this part clearly and conspicuously. Industry members maintain the burden of showing that there is insufficient space to provide the disclosures that this part otherwise requires be made clearly and conspicuously.
[44 FR 50242, Aug. 27, 1979, as amended at 51 FR 39651, Oct. 30, 1986; 70 FR 31276, May 31, 2005; 84 FR 20790, May 13, 2019]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamaica Latrin MCDADE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-51573

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 27, 2007.

*965Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ricardo Guzman, Law Office of Rick Guzman, Round Rock, TX, for Defendant Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jamaica Latrin McDade appeals the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute phencyclidine (PCP). He argues for the first time on appeal that PCP is a Schedule II controlled substance and that the district court, therefore, erred by using the statutory maximum set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) when applying the career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). He also argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the career offender enhancement on the ground that PCP was a Schedule III controlled substance.

Contrary to McDade’s assertion, PCP is a Schedule II controlled substance. *See*21 U.S.C. § 812(a); 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12. Accordingly, McDade has not shown that the district court erred by using the statutory maximum sentence set forth in § 841(b)(1)(C).

Any objection to the application of § 4Bl.l(b) on the ground that PCP was a schedule III controlled substance would have been frivolous. Accordingly, counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise this issue before the district court. *See United States v. Glinsey,*209 F.3d 386, 392-93 (5th Cir.2000); *Green v. Johnson,*160 F.3d 1029, 1037 (5th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Application of Magnetic and Electromagnetic Methods to Locate Buried Metal

| *By***Robert J. Horton** |
|--------------------------|

**U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-317**

| **Version 1.0** |
|-----------------|

| The USGS conducted a geophysical survey to locate buried metallic objects      within a landfill on the U.S. Air Force Academy grounds near Colorado Springs,      CO. Magnetic and electromagnetic (EM) methods were used to survey the landfill      because they easily detect magnetic and conductive objects buried at shallow    depths. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| The text of this report is presented here in Portable Document Format. The latest    version of Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software is required to view it.    If you wish to download the latest version of Acrobat Reader free of charge,    click here . |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| OFR-03-317 PDF file    (322 KB) | (This version of the report is accessible as defined in Section 508.) |
|---------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices                                                                                                                                                                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey      URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/of/2003/ofr-03-317/Questions or Assistance: USGS Web ContactPage Last Modified: Sat Jan 12 23:13 EDT 2013 |  |

----
,_o sr 17 

# I UNITED STATES ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

L PflQ REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901 

## SEP 3 0 2814 The Honorable Elizabeth Kipp. Chairperson Big Sandy Rancheria ofMono Indians ofCalifornia P.O. Box 337 Auberry, California 93602 Dear Chairperson Kipp: Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 and the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, I would like to invitethe Big Sandy Rancheria ofMono Indians ofCaliforniato engage in government-to-governmentconsultation on action EPA is considering to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area from Moderate nonattainmentto Serious nonattainment fortwo National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM 2

. 5 ). The San Joaquin Valley is currently classified Moderate nonattainment fortwo PM 2

. 5 NAAQS established in 1997 and 2006. EPA is evaluating airquality and modeling analyses regarding the ability ofthe San Joaquin Valley to attain the 1997 and the 2006 PM 2

. 5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment dates for each standard. Consistent with these evaluations, EPA is also considering action to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley as Serious nonattainment forthe 1997 and 2006 PM 2

. 5 NAAQS. These reclassification actions would establish new attainment dates and outline new air quality planning requirements. These reclassifications would also lowerthe applicable “major source” thresholds forthe purposes ofthe nonattainment new source review program and the Title V operating permit program from its current level of 100 tons peryear (tpy) to 70 tpy, potentially subjecting more stationary sources to these requirements. The reclassifications may also lowerthe dc minimis threshold forthe Clean Air Act’s General Conformity requirement from 100 tpy to 70 tpy. Underthe General Conformity requirement, Federal agencies bearthe responsibility ofdetermining conformity ofactions in nonattainment and maintenance areas that require Federal permits, approvals, or funding. To ensure thatthe interests and concerns ofthe Big Sandy Rancheria ofMono Indians ofCalifornia are considered, I would like to invite you oryour designated consultation representative to engage in government-to-governmentconsultation with EPA. To request further information, orto initiate consultation. please have your staffcontact Mr. Kerry Drake, Associate Director, Air Division, at (41 5) 947-41 57 orby electronic mail atdrake.kerryepa.gov. Ifyou desire government-to-government consultation with EPA. we respectfully requestthat you notify us by October 27, 2014. Thankyou and I look forward to receiving your input. Sincerely,

eborah Jordan Director, Air Division
cc: Jaime Collins, Environmental Programs Manager

P1i1ltt’(1 oh J?ek’1 J ‘per
### §13342. Oil substitution through coal liquefaction

#### (a) Program direction

The Secretary shall conduct a program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial application for the purpose of developing economically and environmentally acceptable advanced technologies for oil substitution through coal liquefaction.

#### (b) Program goals

The goals of the program established under subsection (a) shall include—

(1) improved resource selection and product quality;

(2) the development of technologies to increase net yield of liquid fuel product per ton of coal;

(3) an increase in overall thermal efficiency; and

(4) a reduction in capital and operating costs through technology improvements.

#### (c) Proposals

Within 180 days after October 24, 1992, the Secretary shall solicit proposals for conducting activities under this section.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title XIII, §1312, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2976.)
§ 260.1 Purpose, scope, and structure of the guides. ( a ) These guides set forth the Federal Trade Commission's current views about environmental claims. The guides help marketers avoid making environmental marketing claims that are unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45. They do not confer any rights on any person and do not operate to bind the FTC or the public. The Commission, however, can take action under the FTC Act if a marketer makes an environmental claim inconsistent with the guides. In any such enforcement action, the Commission must prove that the challenged act or practice is unfair or deceptive in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
( b ) These guides do not preempt federal, state, or local laws. Compliance with those laws, however, will not necessarily preclude Commission law enforcement action under the FTC Act.
( c ) These guides apply to claims about the environmental attributes of a product, package, or service in connection with the marketing, offering for sale, or sale of such item or service to individuals. These guides also apply to business-to-business transactions. The guides apply to environmental claims in labeling, advertising, promotional materials, and all other forms of marketing in any medium, whether asserted directly or by implication, through words, symbols, logos, depictions, product brand names, or any other means.
( d ) The guides consist of general principles, specific guidance on the use of particular environmental claims, and examples. Claims may raise issues that are addressed by more than one example and in more than one section of the guides. The examples provide the Commission's views on how reasonable consumers likely interpret certain claims. The guides are based on marketing to a general audience. However, when a marketer targets a particular segment of consumers, the Commission will examine how reasonable members of that group interpret the advertisement. Whether a particular claim is deceptive will depend on the net impression of the advertisement, label, or other promotional material at issue. In addition, although many examples present specific claims and options for qualifying claims, the examples do not illustrate all permissible claims or qualifications under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Nor do they illustrate the only ways to comply with the guides. Marketers can use an alternative approach if the approach satisfies the requirements of Section 5 of the FTC Act. All examples assume that the described claims otherwise comply with Section 5. Where particularly useful, the Guides incorporate a reminder to this effect.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# April-June, 2016 -  2.206 Quarterly Status Report.

Accession Number: ML16179A100

Date Released: Thursday, August 4, 2016

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML16179A105 - Quarterly April - June, 2016 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. (3 page(s), 7/25/2016)
    - ML16179A106 - Quarterly Report-April-June, 2016 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206 (enclosure). (12 page(s), 7/25/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### In the Matter of Emily Reid, an Attorney, Resignor.

[820 NYS2d 910]

Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys *(see Matter of Manown,*240 AD2d 83*1245[1998]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Martoche and Smith, JJ. (Filed Sept. 11, 2006.)
#### Jacob Frummer, as Trustee of the Estate of Esther Greenberg, Also Known as Esther Lesin, a Bankrupt, Respondent, v. Esther Greenberg, Also Known as Esther Lesin, et al., Appellants, and Leo Blatt, as Trustee of the Estate of Saul Greenberg, a Bankrupt, et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action brought by a trustee in bankruptcy to be declared the owner of certain realty, and for other relief. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-respondent. There was ample evidence before the trial court upon which to base a finding that this real estate belonged to appellant Esther Greenberg, the bankrupt, and as such became an asset of the estate of said bankrupt. There is also no ground for vacating the judgment and granting a new trial on the basis of the appellants’ contention as to what the understanding of all the parties may have been in addition to the terms of the stipulation as placed upon the record by the court reporter. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Murphy, JJ. [See *post,*p. 960.]
----

----

| INDIANA                                       |   | 1-7160                                                   |   | 35-1101097               |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
| (State      or other jurisdiction             |   | (Commission      File Number)                            |   | (I.R.S.      Employer    |
| of      incorporation or organization)        |   |                                                     |   | Identification      No.) |
|                                          |   |                                                     |   |                     |
| 2831      Dexter Drive, Elkhart, Indiana      |   |                                                     |   | 46514                    |
| (Address      of Principal Executive Offices) |   |                                                     |   | (Zip      Code)          |
|                                          |   |                                                     |   |                     |
|                                          |   | (574)      266-2500                                      |   |                     |
| (Registrant’s      telephone number,    |
| including      area code)                     |
|                                          |   |                                                     |   |                     |
|                                          |   | 423      North Main StreetMiddlebury,      Indiana 46540 |   |                     |
| (Former      Name or Former Address,          |
| if      Changed Since Last Report)            |

| □ | Written      communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR      230.425)                  |
|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| □ | Soliciting      material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR      240.14a-12)                 |
| □ | Pre-commencement      communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR      240.14d-2(b)) |
| □ | Pre-commencement      communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR      240.13e-4(c)) |

----

|   | (b) | Not      Applicable |
|--------|-----|---------------------|

|   | (c) | Not      Applicable |
|--------|-----|---------------------|

Press Release dated January 26, 2009

----

| Date:  | January      26, 2009 |   | By:    | /s/      Thomas P. Gehl        |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |                  |   |   |                           |
|   |                  |   |   | Thomas      P. Gehl, Secretary |
|   |                  |   |   | Printed      Name and Title    |

----

----
§ 703.1 Definitions. ( a ) *The Act* means the Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301, *et seq.*
( b ) *Consumer product* means any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed).
( c ) *Written warranty* means: ( 1 ) Any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the sale of a consumer product by a supplier to a buyer which relates to the nature of the material or workmanship and affirms or promises that such material or workmanship is defect free or will meet a specified level of performance over a specified period of time, or
( 2 ) Any undertaking in writing in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product to refund, repair, replace, or take other remedial action with respect to such product in the event that such product fails to meet the specifications set forth in the undertaking, which written affirmation, promise or undertaking becomes part of the basis of the bargain between a supplier and a buyer for purposes other than resale of such product.
( d ) *Warrantor* means any person who gives or offers to give a written warranty which incorporates an informal dispute settlement mechanism.
( e ) *Mechanism* means an informal dispute settlement procedure which is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty to which any provision of Title I of the Act applies, as provided in section 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310.
( f ) *Members* means the person or persons within a Mechanism actually deciding disputes.
( g ) *Consumer* means a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any consumer product, any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of a written warranty applicable to the product, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty or under applicable state law to enforce against the warrantor the obligations of the warranty.
( h ) *On the face of the warranty* means: ( 1 ) If the warranty is a single sheet with printing on both sides of the sheet, or if the warranty is comprised of more than one sheet, the page on which the warranty text begins;
( 2 ) If the warranty is included as part of a longer document, such as a use and care manual, the page in such document on which the warranty text begins.
[40 FR 60215, Dec. 31, 1975, as amended at 80 FR 42722, July 20, 2015]
#### Anna E. Ginsburgh et al., Plaintiffs, and Emma A. Plummer, Appellant, v. Yetta F. Tucker, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.