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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 415 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 415

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow a 
local educational agency that receives a subgrant under section 2121 of 
     such Act to use the funds to provide professional development 
 activities that train school personnel about restorative justice and 
                          conflict resolution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2011

  Mr. Cohen (for himself, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, Mr. 
Davis of Illinois, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Payne, Mr. Rangel, Ms. 
Lee of California, Mr. Markey, and Ms. Norton) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow a 
local educational agency that receives a subgrant under section 2121 of 
     such Act to use the funds to provide professional development 
 activities that train school personnel about restorative justice and 
                          conflict resolution.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restorative Justice in Schools Act 
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE TRAINING.

    Section 2123(a)(3)(B) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6623(a)(3)(B)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (iv), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in clause (v), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(vi) provide training about restorative 
                        justice and conflict resolution.''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:08-cv-01327-MMC Document 102 Filed 08/12/10 Page 1 of 2
12

Case 3:08-cv-01327-MMC Document 102 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 2
H. R. 2490

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 442 West 

Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Mayor Joseph S. Daddona 

Memorial Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

442 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, shall be known 

and designated as the ‘‘Mayor Joseph S. Daddona Memorial Post 

Office’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Mayor 

Joseph S. Daddona Memorial Post Office’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
### §3796ee–6. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796ee–6 was editorially reclassified as section 10407 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

G:\CRBALL\2007\5634\Order re March 12 hearing.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIRTRANSPORTATION ANTITRUSTLITIGATION                                                                      /

This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS                                                                      /

No. C 07-05634 CRB

MDL 1913

ORDER

The Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will be held in abeyance pending a

determination of the applicability of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction to these proceedings. 

The merits of those motions will therefore not be the subject of the hearing scheduled for

March 12, 2010.  Instead, the parties should be prepared to discuss the merits of Defendants’

Motion To Stay Proceedings Upon Notice of Injunction in In Re: Japan Airlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00339-CRB   Document 38   Filed 03/03/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-13T13:39:18-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
§ 505.14 Specific exemptions (Subsection (k)). The specific exemptions focus more on the nature of the records in the system of records than on the agency. The following categories of records may be exempt from disclosure: ( a ) *Subsection (k)(1).* Records which are specifically authorized under criteria established under an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, and which are in fact properly classified according to such Executive Order;
( b ) *Subsection (k)(2).* Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes (other than material within the scope of subsection (j)(2) as discussed in § 505.13(a)). If any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which she/he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such material, the material shall be provided to the individual, unless disclosure of the material would reveal the identity of a source who has been pledged confidentiality;
( c ) *Subsection (k)(3).* Records maintained in connection with protection of the President and other VIPs accorded special protection by statute;
( d ) *Subsection (k)(4).* Records required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records.
( e ) *Subsection (k)(5).* Records compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information, but only if disclosure of the material would reveal the identity of a confidential source that furnished information to the Government.
( f ) *Subsection (k)(6).* Testing or examination records used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service when the disclosure of such would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process.
( g ) *Subsection (k)(7).* Evaluation records used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, but only if disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2641 

To require the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission to take 

into consideration the homeland security contributions and value of military installations when the Commission conducts its review and analysis 

of the list of military installations recommended for closure or realignment by the Secretary of Defense. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2005 

Ms. SLAUGHTER (for herself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. HERSETH, and 

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission to take into consideration the homeland security 

contributions and value of military installations when 

the Commission conducts its review and analysis of the 

list of military installations recommended for closure or 

realignment by the Secretary of Defense. 

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

•HR 2641 IH 

1 SECTION 1. DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT 

2 COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF HOME3 LAND SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND VALUE 

4 OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS. 

5 (a) CONSIDERATION OF HOMELAND SECURITY CON6 TRIBUTIONS AND VALUE.—In conducting its review and 

7 analysis of the list of military installations recommended 

8 for closure or realignment that the Secretary of Defense 

9 submitted to Congress on May 13, 2005, pursuant to sec10 tion 2914 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 

11 Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101– 

12 510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note), the Defense Base Closure and 

13 Realignment Commission shall consider the homeland se14 curity contributions and value of each military installation 

15 included on such list. 

16 (b) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—If the Defense 

17 Base Closure and Realignment Commission completes its 

18 review and analysis of the Secretary’s list before the date 

19 of the enactment of this Act, all other actions carried out 

20 under section 2914 of the Defense Base Closure and Re21 alignment Act of 1990 by the Commission or the Presi22 dent before the date of the enactment of this Act shall 

23 have no further force and effect, and such actions may 

24 resume only after the Commission complies with sub25 section (a). In order to provide sufficient time for the 

26 Commission to comply with subsection (a), each date spec-
3 

•HR 2641 IH 

1 ified in subsections (d) and (e) of section 2914 of the De2 fense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 shall be 

3 deemed to be the date that is one year later than the speci4 fied date. 

Æ
Code of Shelby County Section 14.5

- 30 Reporting Requirements

Except as provided below, each permitted stationary air pollution source must submit to the department an annual report that establishes the amount of actual emissions of each regulated pollutan t, including carbon monoxide, for that source. This report will be for the emissions of that source that occurred during the calendar year starting in 1991 and continuing for succeeding years thereafter. The department may request, and the air pollution so urce shall provide, additional information on the emissions data submitted when the department determines the data previously provided is inadequate to establish the actual type or amount of emissions from the source subject to fees. Not including air tox ics as they are defined in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the amendments thereto or a source that has actual emissions of more than twenty five (25) tons per year of either nitrogen dioxide or volatile organic compounds, if the source emits fewer than fifty (50) tons of actual emissions of pollutant during a year, it may at its option, use as the actual emissions figure, its permitted pollutan t levels where available and known. If the source is a "major source" under the air toxics provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 it too must calculate its actual emission of regulated pollutants. Failure to provide, on a timely basis, any additional information requested shall be considered failure to pay the fees.

(Shelby County Ord. No. 102, §5, 3

- 30

- 92; Amended by Shelby County Ord. No. 171, December 18, 1995.)

14.5

- 30, p. 1
#### Celia Licatese, Respondent-Appellant, v Waldbaums, Inc., Appellant-Respondent.

[717 NYS2d 226]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated May 3, 2000, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court *(see,*22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured when she slipped and fell on an oily substance on the floor of the defendant’s supermarket as she waited in line at the cash register. The plaintiff alleged that the oily substance leaked out of a plastic bottle of Wesson Oil that she was holding.

The defendant met its burden of establishing prima facie that it did not create the alleged slippery condition and that it *430did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition *(see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836; *Gill v City of Mount Vernon,*275 AD2d 733; *Price v EQK Green Acres,*275 AD2d 737; *Rivera v City of New York,*275 AD2d 701). The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to come forward with sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact *(see, Cellini v Waldbaum, Inc.,*262 AD2d 345). In opposition, the plaintiff argued that the defendant created the slippery condition when its employee allegedly punctured the bottle while unpacking it and stacking it on the shelf. However, there is no evidence, only speculation, that the alleged defect in the bottle was caused by the defendant’s employee. Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### § 240.12 Prosecution of claims.

After payment by USAID to an Applicant hereunder, USAID shall have exclusive power to prosecute all claims related to rights to receive payments under the Eligible Notes to which it is thereby subrogated. If a Noteholder continues to have an interest in the outstanding Eligible Notes, such a Noteholder and USAID shall consult with each other with respect to their respective interests in such Eligible Notes and the manner of and responsibility for prosecuting claims.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Cortes, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 21, 1976, affirmed. No opinion. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and Damiani, JJ., concur.
§ 100.204 Reasonable accommodations. ( a ) It shall be unlawful for any person to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a handicapped person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling unit, including public and common use areas.
( b ) The application of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:
Example (1): A blind applicant for rental housing wants live in a dwelling unit with a seeing eye dog. The building has a *no pets* policy. It is a violation of § 100.204 for the owner or manager of the apartment complex to refuse to permit the applicant to live in the apartment with a seeing eye dog because, without the seeing eye dog, the blind person will not have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
Example (2): Progress Gardens is a 300 unit apartment complex with 450 parking spaces which are available to tenants and guests of Progress Gardens on a *first come first served* basis. John applies for housing in Progress Gardens. John is mobility impaired and is unable to walk more than a short distance and therefore requests that a parking space near his unit be reserved for him so he will not have to walk very far to get to his apartment. It is a violation of § 100.204 for the owner or manager of Progress Gardens to refuse to make this accommodation. Without a reserved space, John might be unable to live in Progress Gardens at all or, when he has to park in a space far from his unit, might have great difficulty getting from his car to his apartment unit. The accommodation therefore is necessary to afford John an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The accommodation is reasonable because it is feasible and practical under the circumstances.
Exhibit 10.1



THE MARKED PORTIONS OF THIS AMENDMENT HAVE BEEN OMITTED

AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO

A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL
TREATMENT



August 24, 2004



VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL/FIRST CLASS MAIL



Mr. Myles Cyr

Carnival Corporation

3655 NW 87thAvenue

Miami, FL 33178



Re: Eighth Amendment to Interactive Television System Agreement dated February 20, 2001, by and between Allin Interactive Corporation and
Carnival Cruise Lines (hereinafter Eighth Amendment)



Dear Myles:



This letter is to amend the Interactive Television System Agreement
(the Agreement) dated February 20, 2001, by and between Allin Interactive Corporation (Allin) and Carnival Cruise Lines (CCL). Capitalized terms shall have the meaning as set forth in Section 1 of that Agreement.



Whereas, Schedule 1.9 of the Agreement set forth an Installation Schedule for
the Agreement; and



Whereas, Schedule 1.11 of the Agreement sets forth Purchase
Prices and Payment Schedules under the Agreement, and



Whereas, the parties
desire to amend Schedules 1.9 and 1.11;



Now, therefore, Schedule 1.9 -
Installation Schedule is amended as follows:



Add the Carnival Liberty. Date
Installed of 07/01/2005 and Date Operational of 08/01/2005. Newbuild.



Now,
therefore, the Schedule 1.11 of the Agreement is amended as follows:



| | A. | Add: Carnival Liberty. Class  Conquest. Cabins  1,487. Price $[REDACTED  CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED].
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Payment Schedule shall remain in accordance with the terms of Schedule 1.11 of the
Agreement.



In witness whereof, this Amendment has been duly executed by the
parties hereto as of the date first above written.



Allin Interactive
Corporation



|                                                          |  |                        
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|By:                                                       |  | /s/ Richard W. Talarico
|Its:                                                      |  | Chairman & CEO         
|                                                         
|Carnival Cruise Lines, a division of Carnival Corporation
|                                                          | 
|By:                                                       |  | /s/ Myles Cyr          
|Its:                                                      |  | VP  CIO
Exhibit 10.8

ADDENDUM TO EXECUTIVE TERMINATION BENEFITS AGREEMENTS

---



| |  | Dated: [insert date]       |  |                                                                                        
| |  | -------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION |  |                                                                                        
| |  | By                         |  | James F. Brashear
Corporate Secretary                                                  
| |  | SABRE INC.                 |  |                                                                                        
| |  | By                         |  | James F. Brashear
Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
| |  | [Executive]                |  |                                                                                        

| |  | Signed: |  |  |  | 
| |  | ------- |  |  |  | 

2

---



QuickLinks
#### § 92.53 “Commission to take depositions” defined.

A *commission to take depositions* is a written authority issued by a court of justice, or by a quasi-judicial body, or a body acting in such capacity, giving power to take the testimony of witnesses who cannot appear personally to be examined in the court or before the body issuing the commission. In Federal practice, a commission to take depositions is issued only when necessary or convenient, on application and notice. The commission indicates the action or hearing in which the depositions are intended to be used, and the person or persons required to take the depositions, usually by name or descriptive title (see § 92.55 for manner of designating notarizing officers). Normally a commission is accompanied by detailed instructions for its execution.

[22 FR 10858, Dec. 27, 1957, as amended at 60 FR 51723, Oct. 3, 1995]
### §5733. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–586, §3(g)(2)(E), Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5025

Section, Pub. L. 93–415, title III, §365, as added Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7279, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4458, related to Secretary's obligation to coordinate activities of health agencies with activities of entities eligible to receive grants.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0307. EMBERY J. MCBRIDE v. THE STATE.

Embery J. McBride, who is serving a life sentence for rape and aggravated

sodomy, filed a “Motion to Correct Void Unconstitutional Illegal Judgment and

Conviction Incorporated With SupremacyClause.” The trial court denied the motion,

and McBride filed this application for discretionary appeal.

1 We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

“[A] petition to vacate or modify a judgment of conviction is not an appropriate

remedy in a criminal case.” Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 SE2d 786)

(2009). Any appeal from an order denying or dismissing such a motion must be

dismissed. See id. at 218 (2); Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150)

(2010). A direct appeal may lie from an order denying a motion to vacate or correct

a void sentence, but only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence

is, in fact, void. See Harper, supra at 217 n.1; Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119

(676 SE2d 465) (2009). “Motions to vacate a void sentence generally are limited to

claimsthat – even assuming the existence and validity of the conviction for which the

sentence was imposed – the law does not authorize that sentence, most typically

because it exceedsthe mostsevere punishment for which the applicable penalstatute

provides.” von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). Thus,

when a sentence is within the statutory range of punishment, it is not void. Jones v.

State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004).

1 McBride filed his application in the Supreme Court, which transferred the

matter to this Court.

February 26, 2018
According to the trial court’s order, McBride challenged the procedure

employed in obtaining his indictment.

2 A challenge to an indictment is a challenge

to the conviction rather than the sentence. See See Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490,

493 (1) (659 SE2d 875) (2008). Because McBride has not raised a colorable voidsentence claim, his application for discretionary appeal is hereby DISMISSED. See

Roberts, supra.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

2

In violation of this Court’s rules, McBride failed to include a copy of the

motion with his application for discretionary appeal. See Court of Appeals Rule 31

(e).

02/26/2018
### §3796cc–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796cc–1 was editorially reclassified as section 10362 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.