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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4389 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4389

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 19 East Merced Street in Fowler, California, as the ``Cecil E. Bolt 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CECIL E. BOLT POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 19 East Merced Street in Fowler, California, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Cecil E. Bolt Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Cecil E. 
Bolt Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 20, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4389

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 19 East Merced Street in Fowler, California, as the ``Cecil E. Bolt 
                             Post Office''.
```
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases. /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE PART

OF PROFESSOR JAMES’

TESTIMONY

With respect to the motion to exclude the “negative causation” analysis of Professor

Christopher M. James, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing it for the final

pretrial conference. The Court will not allow any expert opinion that is based on a loss-causation

theory contrary to the order filed today on that issue. Please read the order and re-do the motion

in conformity therewith. Please do not waste time over mere arguments over the meaning of the

overall evidence where the jury could go either way. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02058-WHA Document 59 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1
### §300gg–92. Regulations

The Secretary, consistent with section 104 of the Health Care Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, may promulgate such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this subchapter. The Secretary may promulgate any interim final rules as the Secretary determines are appropriate to carry out this subchapter.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVII, §2792, as added Pub. L. 104–191, title I, §102(a), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 1976.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 104 of the Health Care Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, referred to in text, probably means section 104 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–191, set out below.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Assuring Coordination Among Departments of Treasury, Health and Human Services, and Labor

Pub. L. 104–191, title I, §104, Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 1978, provided that: "The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Labor shall ensure, through the execution of an interagency memorandum of understanding among such Secretaries, that—

"(1) regulations, rulings, and interpretations issued by such Secretaries relating to the same matter over which two or more such Secretaries have responsibility under this subtitle [subtitle A (§§101–104) of title I of Pub. L. 104–191, enacting this section, sections 300gg, 300gg–1, 300gg–11 to 300gg–13, 300gg–21 to 300gg–23, and 300gg–91 of this title, and sections 1181 to 1183 and 1191 to 1191c of Title 29, Labor, amending sections 300e and 300bb–8 of this title and sections 1003, 1021, 1022, 1024, 1132, 1136, and 1144 of Title 29, and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 300gg of this title and section 1181 of Title 29] (and the amendments made by this subtitle and section 401 [enacting sections 9801 to 9806 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code]) are administered so as to have the same effect at all times; and

"(2) coordination of policies relating to enforcing the same requirements through such Secretaries in order to have a coordinated enforcement strategy that avoids duplication of enforcement efforts and assigns priorities in enforcement."
#### The People of the State of New York v. Joseph Scarola.

Assignment of counsel vacated. The orders of this court entered on April 19, 1962 are modified. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
### §3796gg–0c. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796gg–0c was editorially reclassified as section 10445 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
SERVED: JUNE 29,2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FREEDOM AffiLINES INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09SW0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0980 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

.. 2 

. ·-

.. 

On October 29, 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed 

a Complaint. Freedom Airlines, Inc. ("Respondent") had earlier requested a hearing. By 

motion dated June 28, 2012, Respondent filed a Withdrawal of Request for Hearing and 

moved to dismiss this proceeding, citing settlement of the matter in the context of the -

reorganization in bankruptcy of Respondent, Mesa Airlines, Inc., and their parent;. 

company, Mesa Air Group, Inc. . •"' 

2: I L! 

14 C.P.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for.a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearin{ru.J.d the 

answer, ~e administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, ·it is ORDERED that: · • 

. . 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing is hereby GRANTED; .and 
~ 

2 !';. 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

(l·(; ~ n(' ~. • .. r (25< 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

<\· 

'. 
FAA Docket No. CP09SW0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 · 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

ONE COPY 

Christopher Pappaioanou, Respondent's Counsel 

Director, Legal Affairs 

Mesa Air Group 

410 North 44th Street, Suite 700 

Phoenix, AZ 85008 

TEL: 602-685-4000 

FAJ(: 602-685-4350 

Annjenet Chennault; Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region, ASW-7E4, AC 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5071 

FAX: 817-222-5092/5946 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 · 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

'• 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail For service in person or by expedited courier, use the foilowing address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. .
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Margit Kosma, Respondent, v. Regina Blau et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

The employer and carrier appeal from an award of $2,500 for serious facial disfigurement. The sole contention of appellants is that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. Claimant and her husband were jointly hired as janitors of a 12-family-tenement house. They received as compensation a rent free apartment in the building worth about $35 per month. The building had no central heating, each tenant having a separate heating appliance within the apartment and furnishing his own fuel. There was a coal stove furnished by the employer in the claimant’s apartment, and the employer also furnished one ton of coal per year. After using this stove for several years claimant and her husband replaced it with one which they purchased. While cleaning this stove with a liquid polish the polish exploded and claimant sustained serious burns. Claimant was subject to call 24 hours a day and lived within the premises to enable her to take care of the needs of the employers’ tenants. The accident happened in mid-Winter, and of course claimant *543had to provide heat to enable her to live on the premises and perform her duties. Cleaning the stove was an act made necessary by living in the employers’ premises to carry out her duties. The ownership of the stove should not be controlling. The accident involved a risk closely associated with and rendered necessary by the employment. The record supports the board’s finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. *(Matter of Finnegan*v. *Biehn,*276 N. Y. 50.) Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### § 40.204 [Reserved]
§ 1203.735-213 Recommendations for employment. ( a ) *Making recommendations in official capacity.* In general, an employee shall not, in the employee's official capacity, make any recommendations in connection with the employment of persons unless the position concerned are with the Government of the United States and the recommendations are made in response to an inquiry from a Government official authorized to employ persons or to investigate applicants for employment. A principal officer in answer to a letter of inquiry from outside the U.S. Government concerning a former employee assigned to the post, may state the length of time the person was employed at the post and the fact that the former employee performed duties in a satisfactory manner, if such is the case. Also, an AID Mission Director may provide names of persons or firms from which a cooperating government may select an employee or firm to be used in some phase of the AID program.
( b ) *Making personal recommendations.* An employee may make a personal recommendation in connection with the employment of any person, including present or former employees, their spouses and/or members of their families, except for employment in a position of trust or profit under the government of the country to which the employee is accredited or assigned (22 U.S.C. 806(b)): *Provided,* That the employee does not divulge any information concerning the person derived from official sources. When a letter of introduction or recommendation is written by an employee, precautionary measures should be taken to prevent its being construed as official correspondence and used by an unscrupulous individual to impress American or foreign officials. Accordingly, official stationery should not be used for this purpose. The letter may, however, show the recommending employee's status as an employee of the U. S. Government. Every personal letter of recommendation shall contain a statement clearly indicating that the letter constitutes a personal recommendation and is not to be construed as an official recommendation by the Government of the United States.
§ 229.500 Employment. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in employment, or recruitment, consideration, or selection therefor, whether full-time or part-time, under any education program or activity operated by a recipient that receives Federal financial assistance.
( 2 ) A recipient shall make all employment decisions in any education program or activity operated by such recipient in a nondiscriminatory manner and shall not limit, segregate, or classify applicants or employees in any way that could adversely affect any applicant's or employee's employment opportunities or status because of sex.
( 3 ) A recipient shall not enter into any contractual or other relationship which directly or indirectly has the effect of subjecting employees or students to discrimination prohibited by §§ 229.500 through 229.550, including relationships with employment and referral agencies, with labor unions, and with organizations providing or administering fringe benefits to employees of the recipient.
( 4 ) A recipient shall not grant preferences to applicants for employment on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preferences has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of these Title IX regulations.
( b ) *Application.* The provisions of §§ 229.500 through 229.550 apply to: ( 1 ) Recruitment, advertising, and the process of application for employment;
( 2 ) Hiring, upgrading, promotion, consideration for and award of tenure, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, application of nepotism policies, right of return from layoff, and rehiring;
( 3 ) Rates of pay or any other form of compensation, and changes in compensation;
( 4 ) Job assignments, classifications, and structure, including position descriptions, lines of progression, and seniority lists;
( 5 ) The terms of any collective bargaining agreement;
( 6 ) Granting and return from leaves of absence, leave for pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, leave for persons of either sex to care for children or dependents, or any other leave;
( 7 ) Fringe benefits available by virtue of employment, whether or not administered by the recipient;
( 8 ) Selection and financial support for training, including apprenticeship, professional meetings, conferences, and other related activities, selection for tuition assistance, selection for sabbaticals and leaves of absence to pursue training;
( 9 ) Employer-sponsored activities, including social or recreational programs; and
( 10 ) Any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.
**Exhibit 15**

August 9, 2007

Securities and Exchange Commission100 F Street, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20549

We are aware that MonsterWorldwide, Inc. has incorporated by reference in its previously filed openRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-81843, 333-63631,333-50699, 333-18937 and 333-131899) its Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2007, which includes our report dated August 6,2007 covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuantto Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), that report is notconsidered part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our firmor a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7and 11 of the Act. It should be noted that we have not performed any proceduressubsequent to August 6, 2007.

/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLPNew York, New York

----
### §300d–45. Authorization of appropriations

For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015. Such authorization of appropriations is in addition to any other authorization of appropriations or amounts that are available for such purpose.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XII, §1245, as added Pub. L. 102–321, title VI, §601, July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 435; amended Pub. L. 111–148, title III, §3505(a)(5), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 525.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–148 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1994. Such authorization of appropriations is in addition to any other authorization of appropriations or amounts that are available for such purpose."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective July 10, 1992, with programs making awards providing financial assistance in fiscal year 1993 and subsequent years effective for awards made on or after Oct. 1, 1992, see section 801(b), (d)(1) of Pub. L. 102–321, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 236 of this title.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pacific Biometrics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Ronald R. Helm, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John
P. Jensen, Vice President of Finance and Controller, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of thE Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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


Date: February 13, 2008

                                       /s/ Ronald R. Helm
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       Ronald R. Helm
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       /s/ John P. Jensen
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       John P. Jensen
                                       Vice President of Finance and Controller
#### Gerda E. Samms, as Administratrix of the Estate of Hubert Samms, Deceased, Plaintiff, v Times Square Garage, Inc., Appellant, and Burlington Elevators, Inc., Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 18, 1977, denying the motion to amend the *747caption of the action, unanimously reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal to appellant. Hubert Samms was killed in an elevator shaft on the premises of his employer, Times Square Garage, Inc. (Times Square). Samms’ administratrix sued Times Square and Burlington Elevators, Inc. (Burlington), the latter having serviced and repaired the elevators on the property. Times Square and Burlington each served cross claims against the other. Times Square moved at Special Term to have the complaint dismissed as against it since Samms could not bring a direct suit against his employer, and his sole remedy against Times Square was under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Special Term denied the motion. Times Square appealed to this court. At a preappeal conference, Samms and Times Square entered into a stipulation in which Samms discontinued its action against Times Square and Times Square in turn withdrew its appeal. Burlington was not a party to this stipulation but nonetheless it served a third-party complaint against Times Square to preserve its claim. Times Square then moved to amend the caption of the action to reflect that it was no longer a main defendant but, rather, only a third-party defendant. Special Term denied the motion. We would reverse. The pleadings presently reflect a suit by Samms against Burlington as a main defendant and a further suit by Burlington as third-party plaintiff against Times Square as a third-party defendant. The caption should have been amended to reflect the state of the pleadings; namely, that Times Square is no longer being sued as a main defendant. While it is true that there may ultimately be an apportionment of liability against a third-party defendant even when the plaintiff has not sued that third-party defendant (e.g., when the defense of the bar of the Workmen’s Compensation Law exists *[Klinger v Dudley,*41 NY2d 362, 368]), nonetheless the exposure of the third-party defendant may be limited *(Klinger v Dudley, supra).*Retaining the caption naming Times Square as a main defendant will only serve to create the possibility of unnecessary confusion at the time of trial, and a provident exercise of discretion dictates that the caption be amended. Settle order on notice. Concur—Evans, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.