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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3911 

To prohibit the permanent relocation of C–130 aircraft assigned to Pittsburgh 

911th Airlift Wing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2012 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. ALTMIRE, Mr. 

CRITZ, Mr. KELLY, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. PITTS, Mr. GERLACH, and Mr. 

SHUSTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the permanent relocation of C–130 aircraft 

assigned to Pittsburgh 911th Airlift Wing. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON RELOCATION OF C–130 AIR4 CRAFT. 

5 The Secretary of the Air Force— 

6 (1) may not plan or execute the permanent re7 location of any C–130 aircraft assigned to Pitts8 burgh IAP Air Reserve Station as of the date of the 

9 enactment of this Act; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3911 IH

1 (2) shall ensure that the number of C–130 air2 craft assigned to Pittsburgh IAP Air Reserve Sta3 tion as of September 30, 2012, equals or exceeds the 

4 number of C–130 aircraft assigned to Pittsburgh 

5 IAP Air Reserve Station as of October 1, 2011. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jack Caley, Respondent, against Theodore E. Houghton, Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

*985Foster, P. J., Brewster, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ., concur.
#### Esther Koschitzki, Respondent, v. Chaskiel Koschitzki, Appellant.

. In a separation action by a wife against her husband, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 6, 1960, which allows a counsel fee of $500 and alimony *pendente lite*of $60 a week, plus the tuition and other charges of a parochial school attended by the parties’ child. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldock, Acting, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeid, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
GH 1 - Poor I) 5- Excellent

(2 - Marginal 6 - Outstanding
I) 3- Fair {| 7- Superb
4 - Good

Source: NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), 2004

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

20 40 60 80 100
a _ be! bel
Kilometers
5 10 20 30 40 50

Miles

Map 3-2
Wind Energy Potential
§ 229.450 Athletics. ( a ) *General.* No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person, or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.
( b ) *Separate teams.* Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purposes of these Title IX regulations, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball, and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
( c ) *Equal opportunity.* ( 1 ) A recipient that operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In determining whether equal opportunities are available, the designated agency official will consider, among other factors: ( i ) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
( ii ) The provision of equipment and supplies;
( iii ) Scheduling of games and practice time;
( iv ) Travel and per diem allowance;
( v ) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
( vi ) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
( vii ) Provision of locker rooms, practice, and competitive facilities;
( viii ) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
( ix ) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
( x ) Publicity.
( 2 ) For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the designated agency official may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.
( d ) *Adjustment period.* A recipient that operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics at the elementary school level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than one year from September 29, 2000. A recipient that operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics at the secondary or postsecondary school level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than three years from September 29, 2000.
(December 11, 1951.)

#### Louis J. Robbins et al., Appellants, *v.*Frank Cohen, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

*Per Curiam.*

Appellants failed to show any right to relief in law or in equity. There never was any exercise of the option to purchase by respondent, and the trial court properly so found. Doubtless through inadvertence the trial court made a finding of fact (finding No. *“*six ”) to the effect that respondent had decided to take up the option of the purchasers. This finding is clearly inconsistent with conclusion of law “ Third ”, which conclusion, we hold, was fully warranted by the evidence. Finding of fact number *“*six ” is, accordingly, reversed and such finding is eliminated.

*726In all other respects the judgment dismissing the complaint should be affirmed, with costs to respondent.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Yan Yoorhis, JJ., concur.

Finding of fact number “ six ” reversed and such finding eliminated. In all other respects the judgment is unanimously affirmed, with costs. Settle order on notice. [See *post,*p. 791.]
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4127 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exempt certain requests 

by physicians for consultations by radiation oncologists from the limitation on certain physician referrals under Medicare. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2012 

Mr. HECK (for himself, Mrs. ELLMERS, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. AMODEI, Ms. 

BERKLEY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. BENISHEK, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, 

and Mr. SESSIONS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exempt 

certain requests by physicians for consultations by radiation oncologists from the limitation on certain physician 

referrals under Medicare. 

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4127 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXEMPTING CERTAIN REQUESTS BY PHYSI2 CIANS FOR CONSULTATIONS BY RADIATION 

3 ONCOLOGISTS FROM THE LIMITATION ON 

4 CERTAIN PHYSICIAN REFERRALS UNDER 

5 MEDICARE. 

6 Section 1877(h)(5)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 

7 U.S.C. 1395nn(h)(5)(C)) is amended by adding at the end 

8 the following new sentence: ‘‘With respect to an individual 

9 admitted as an inpatient of a hospital, a request by a phy10 sician, after such admission, for a consultation by a radi11 ation oncologist that results in an order for radiation ther12 apy for such individual does not constitute a referral by 

13 a referring physician.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Frank R. Kleess, Respondent, v. David Perlow, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for injuries to person and property sustained by plaintiff when his automobile struck the rear of defendant’s automobile while it was parked in the right lane of the southbound side of Cross Island Parkway in Queens County, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 23, 1961 upon the jury’s verdict after trial, in favor of plaintiff. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC

Exhibit 32.4

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 DIRECTV Financing Co., Inc. (the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Palkovic, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

|/s/ MICHAEL W. PALKOVICMichael W. Palkovic
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|November 8, 2006                                                                                |  | 

---



QuickLinks
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.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# Time and Date:

10 a.m., Thursday, December 16, 2004.

# Place:

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

# Status:

Open.

# Matters To Be Considered:

The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:

*Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Colorado Lava, Inc.,*                         Docket No. EAJ 2001-2. (Issues include whether Colorado Lava, as a prevailing party in an administrative proceeding, is entitled to a fee award under the 1996 amendments to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504(a)(4), and the implementing regulations of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 20 CFR 2704.105(b).)                    

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jean Ellen, (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,

Chief Docket Clerk.

[FR Doc. 04-27641  Filed 12-14-04; 12:30 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
### §285j–3. Research on multiple sclerosis

The Director of the Institute shall conduct and support research on multiple sclerosis, especially research on effects of genetics and hormonal changes on the progress of the disease.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §460, as added Pub. L. 103–43, title XII, §1201, June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 169.)
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Review of Research Scientist Development Award—Research & Training (K01's), Conference (R13's), and Institutional National Research Service Award (T32's).                    

*Date:*                         December 10, 2004.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Guo HE Zhang, PhD, MD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 451-6524,                         *zhanggu@mail.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 18, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 04-26255  Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Brudecki, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 730]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Ronald H. Tills, A.J.), rendered May 28, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court failed to exercise its discretion at sentencing in imposing a determinate term of imprisonment of 20 years. The record reflects that, in addition to the negotiated sentence of “no less than 20 years,” the court considered the presentence report, the wish of the victim’s family for the imposition of the maximum sentence of 25 years, and the fact that defendant’s accomplices, both minors, were each sentenced to determinate terms of imprisonment of 10 years. Thus, the record reflects that the court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing defendant “after careful consideration of all facts available” *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305 [1981]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

All concur, Hayes, J., not participating. Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Hayes, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4181 

To amend title 9, United States Code, to exclude employment contracts 

and employment disputes from such title. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2012 

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 9, United States Code, to exclude employment 

contracts and employment disputes from such title. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 9. 

4 Title 9, United States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in section 1, by striking ‘‘of seamen,’’ and 

6 all that follows through ‘‘interstate commerce’’; and 

7 (2) in section 2— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘A written provision’’ and 

9 inserting the following: 

10 ‘‘(a) A written provision’’; and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4181 IH

1 (B) by inserting after subsection (a), the 

2 following new subsections: 

3 ‘‘(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, 

4 no predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or en5 forceable if it requires arbitration of an employment dis6 pute. The term ‘employment dispute’ means a dispute be7 tween an employer and employee arising out of the rela8 tionship of employer and employee. 

9 ‘‘(c) Nothing in this chapter shall apply to any arbi10 tration provision in a contract between an employer and 

11 a labor organization, except that no such arbitration provi12 sion shall have the effect of waiving the right of an em13 ployee to seek judicial enforcement of a right arising under 

14 a provision of the Constitution of the United States, a 

15 State constitution, or a Federal or State statute, or public 

16 policy arising therefore.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### (A) Salzman Sign Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Elsa Beck, as Administratrix of the Estate of Irving Beck, Deceased, Respondent. (B) Edward Pardocchi, Respondent, v. National Casualty Company, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Pursuant to statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 589, suhd. 4, par. [a]), we certify that questions of law have arisen which in our opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ancelot Felix, Appellant.

[717 NYS2d 60]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered April 16, 1997, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and *132sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determinations concerning credibility. Defendant’s role as a steerer in the transaction was established by evidence that he responded “yes” and “how much do you want” when the undercover officer asked if he had any “nicks,” ascertained the quantity desired, and directed the officer verbally and with a gesture toward a building entrance. It can be reasonably inferred that defendant’s gesture was a signal to the person at the door that she could let the undercover officer into the building to buy drugs, since she immediately opened the door for him. Furthermore, defendant was still located at his post in front of the building when the officer exited after completing the purchase. Thus, defendant’s conduct went far beyond rendering advice on where to buy drugs.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rubin, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
From: Christina Coger <CCoger@LTBBODAWA-NSN.GOV>

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:07 AM

To: TASreinterpretation

Cc: Kira Davis; Doug Craven

Subject: RE: Comment Letter on Potential Proposed Rule to reinterpret Clean Water Act (CWA) TAS for 

Tribes

Aanii Fred:

We have reviewed some additional information on the TAS reinterpretation and feel that, based on this 

preliminary information, we are comfortable with deferring formal consultation with EPA until the final 

language is posted this fall. We will contact you should we require consultation at that time. Also, I’d like 

to reiterate the fact that we are in support of this reinterpretation overall for its benefits to tribal 

sovereignty and lessening of administrative burdens for tribal nations pursuing regulatory authorities to 

protect their waters; we may have questions about specific language that can be addressed (if 

necessary) once we have an opportunity to review the final version. 

Miigwech,

Christina Coger, AICP

Environmental Services Coordinator

Natural Resource Department

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians

(231) 242-1571

ccoger@ltbbodawa-nsn.gov

From: Leamond, Beth [mailto:Leamond.Beth@epa.gov] On Behalf Of TASreinterpretation

Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:06 AM

To: Christina Coger

Cc: Kira Davis; Doug Craven

Subject: RE: Comment Letter on Potential Proposed Rule to reinterpret Clean Water Act (CWA) TAS for 

Tribes

Dear Ms. Coger, 

Thank you for the comment letter from the Tribal Vice Chair of Little Traverse Bay Bands of 

Odawa Indians. We will consider these comments as we develop the proposed interpretive rule 

for TAS reinterpretation, and include them in the adminstrative record. 

Sincerely,

Fred Leutner, Senior Advisor 

National Water Quality Standards Branch (4305T) 

EPA Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20460. 

Office: (202) 566-0378

http://water.epa.gov/scitech

From: Christina Coger <CCoger@LTBBODAWA-NSN.GOV>

Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 12:22 PM

To: TASreinterpretation

Cc: Kira Davis; Doug Craven
Subject: Comment Letter on Potential Proposed Rule to reinterpret Clean Water Act (CWA) TAS for 

Tribes

Ms. Beth Leamond/Mr. Fred Leutner:

Please see the attached comment letter signed by the Tribal Vice Chair for your consideration. 

Thank you,

Christina Coger, AICP

Environmental Services Coordinator

Natural Resource Department

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians

(231) 242-1571

ccoger@ltbbodawa-nsn.gov