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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9596 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9596

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title 41, United States Code, and title 10, United States 
    Code, to provide best value through the multiple award schedule 
                    program, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Value Over Cost Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. PROVIDING BEST VALUE THROUGH THE MULTIPLE AWARD SCHEDULE 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 152(3)(B) of title 41, United States Code, 
is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) orders and contracts under those procedures 
                result in--
                            ``(i) the lowest overall cost alternative; 
                        or
                            ``(ii) in the case that the Administrator 
                        of General Services determines that obtaining 
                        best value (as described under section 15.101 
                        of the Federal Acquisition Regulation) is 
                        necessary to promote the best interests of the 
                        Federal Government, obtaining the best value to 
                        meet the needs of the Federal Government.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3012(3)(B) of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) orders and contracts under those procedures 
                result in--
                            ``(i) the lowest overall cost alternative; 
                        or
                            ``(ii) in the case that the Administrator 
                        of General Services determines that obtaining 
                        best value (as described under section 15.101 
                        of the Federal Acquisition Regulation) is 
                        necessary to promote the best interests of the 
                        Federal Government, obtaining the best value to 
                        meet the needs of the United States.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 12, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 9596

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend title 41, United States Code, and title 10, United States 
    Code, to provide best value through the multiple award schedule 
                    program, and for other purposes.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           36329
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            2485
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  1500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     279328
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         916356
<ALLOWANCE>                                       7969
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1298260
<DEPOSITS>                                      964046
<SHORT-TERM>                                     76917
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              15309
<LONG-TERM>                                      95185
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         10727
<OTHER-SE>                                      136076
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 1298260
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  78139
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                17057
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   432
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 95628
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               36118
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7515
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            51995
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     1891
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 794
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  34390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  25802
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       25802
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     18351
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.87
<LOANS-NON>                                       3672
<LOANS-PAST>                                       794
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    75
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  38460
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  7189
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     2465
<RECOVERIES>                                       838
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 7969
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              6062
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           1907
        


</TABLE>
#### LUMBER EXCH. BANK, Respondent, v. CITY OF NORTH TONAWANDA, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 6,1903.)

Action by the Lumber Exchange Bank against the city of North Tonawanda.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of the Intermediate Accounting of James W. Bassette, as Administrator of the Estate of Leslie A. Cronk, Deceased. (And Another Proceeding.)

Order entered amending ordering paragraph of order entered September 12,1963.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 07129

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

07129\07129_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

07129\07129_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

07129\07129_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 07129\07129_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 07129\07129_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07129\07129_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07129\07129_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07129\07129_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07129\07129_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07129\Supporting Documents\07129_PartA_shawville_AerialMap1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

07129\Supporting Documents\07129_PartA_shawville_AerialMap2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07129\Supporting Documents\07129_PartA_shawville_WB_1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07129\Supporting Documents\07129_PartD_shawville_POND_1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
# Vok^ ^ ^ mw^^-^^-"^

^ Mik e Alliso n -tV^ t CIT> ' Q Terr yHof f Mayo r^^dHBij^ V Huma n Resources Directo r Howar d D . Partingto n ^S^^^^^BB^ \ Wayn e E . Hennek e CityAdministrato rjaUHHRHH^W / Cit yCler k / Financ e Directo r Nic k Gregor y* " fflUn Jud yMannin g Assistan t CityAdministrato r^^^^^^^,..,1^11 ^ HIL . Deput yCler k Rober t G . Suelte r CityAttorne y,-»-*• • aw>r^a—>.i«-« .



# GREATBEN D

Marc h 5 . 201 0 Mr . Denni s DeVany , Chie f X-5 3 EA S & Domesti cAnalysi s Divisio n Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenu e S . E . Washington . D C 2059 0 Re : Great Ben d Municipa l Airpor t Hu b Chang e Dea rMr . DeVany : Firs t o f all , o n behal f o f ou rcommunityw e woul d lik e t o than k yo u fo ryou r continue d suppor

t o f thi s importan t program . Wit h Salina' s recen t decisio n t o sta yi n Kansa s City , w e hav e ha d continuin g dialogu e wit h Grea t Lake s o n ho wbes t t o increas e otj rridership . W e hav e com e t o th e conclusio n a chang e I n Hub s fo rou rcommunit yi s th e righ t choice . A s you ma y remember , Grea t Lake s origina l bi d wa s fo rDenve rservic e bu t the ywer e willin g t o accommodat e u s i n maintainin g Kansa s Cityservice . Thi s lette ri s t o confir m th e Cityo f Grea t Ben d an d Grea t Lake s Aviatio n hav e agree d t o a chang e i n ai rservic e at th e Great Ben d Municipa l Airpor t fo rth e sam e subsid yamoun t i n th e recen t Orde ran d t o eliminat e flight s fro m Grea t Ben d t o Kansa s CityInternationa l Airpor t (MCI ) du e t o th e downsizin g an d deterioratio n o f connectin g opportunitie s i n MCI . W e woul d lik e t o hav e flight s g o t o Denve r Internationa l Airpor

t (DEN) . Wit h you rapprova l w e ar e i n acceptanc e o f Grea t Lake s Aviatio n ne wservic e patter n beginnin g i n Apri l o f 2010 .

P.O . 60x116 8 • Grea t Bend . Kansa s • 6753 0 • 620.793.411 1 • Fa x620.793.410 8 www.greatbendks.ne t

### Pleas e contac t me a t 62 0 793-411 1 i f yo u hav e an yquestions . Again , you r assistanc e I s greatl yappreciated . Sincerely , Mike Alliso n Mayo r Cc : Grea t Lake s Aviation , Ltd .
November 18, 2015

Exemption No. 12285A Regulatory Docket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 1201

Mr. Luis Hernandez, Jr.

10945 Hortense Street #204 North Hollywood, CA 91602

Dear Mr. Hernandez :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter dated August 10, 2015

, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

for an amendment to your current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ), 61.101(e)(4 ) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a) , 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code o f Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data

collection

. You requested an amendment to conduct closed

- set motion picture and television filming to your operations.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Regi ster because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

. T he

unmanned aircraft authorized in the original grant are comparable in type, size, weight, speed and operating capabilities to those in this petition

.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 12285 remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is granted an amendment to add closed

- set motion picture and television filming to its UAS operations.2

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 12285 remain in effect exc ept
as follows. Condition No. 2 has been updated to permit closed

- set motion picture and television filming

.

Failure to com ply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed

- set motion picture and television filming

are permitted.

T his exemption terminates on August 31, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10511

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ERASMO CASTANEDA-TORRES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-176-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Erasmo CastanedaTorres has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Castaneda-Torres has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-10511 Document: 00513079572 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
No. 14-10511

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-10511 Document: 00513079572 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
#### § 57.15007 Protective equipment or clothing for welding, cutting, or working with molten metal.

Protective clothing or equipment and face shields or goggles shall be worn when welding, cutting, or working with molten metal.
# FORM 6-K

SECURITIES
  AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington,
  D.C. 20549

# Report of
  Foreign Issuer

# Pursuant
  to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of

# Securities
  Exchange Act of 1934

For the month
  of August 2004

ABBEY NATIONAL
  PLC 
  (Translation of registrants name into English)

Abbey National
  House, 2 Triton Square, Regent's Place
London NW1 3AN, England   
   (Address of principal executive offices)

|Indicate
      by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under
      cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form 20-F . . . .X. . . . Form 40-F . . . . . . . . Indicate
        by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained
        in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission
        pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


Yes
  . . . . . . . No . . .X. . . .

---

**Abbey National plc
25 August 2004**

Issued: 25 August 2004

**Rule 2.10 Announcement – Relevant Securities in Issue**

In accordance with Rule 2.10 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, Abbey National plc (“Abbey”) confirms that, as at close of business on 24 August 2004, it had in issue 1,476,886,851 *(including those represented by ADSs)*ordinary shares of 10 pence each (“Abbey Shares”).

The International Securities Identification Number for the Abbey Shares is GB0000044551 and for the American Depositary Shares of Abbey is US0029201060.

Each American Depositary Share of Abbey represents two Abbey Shares.

Karen Carson
Secretariat Assistant
Tel: 0207 756 4358

The directors of Abbey National plc accept responsibility for the information contained in this announcement and confirm that, to the best of their knowledge and belief (having taken all reasonable care to ensure that such is the case), the information contained in this announcement is in accordance with the facts and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information.

---

# SIGNATURES

Pursuant
  to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has
  duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto
  duly authorized.

|                     |  | ABBEY NATIONAL PLC               
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|Date: 25 August 2004 |  | By: /s/Karen Carson              
|                     |  | Karen Carson**Abbey Secretariat**
#### § 902.25 Approval of Alaska abandoned mine land reclamation plan amendments.

The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to OSM, the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register and the State citations or a brief description of each amendment. The amendments in this table are listed in order of the date of final publication in the Federal Register.

| Original Amendment submission date | Date of final publication | Citation/description |
| --- | --- | --- |
| May 28, 1992 | November 16, 1992 | Emergency response reclamation program. |

[62 FR 9935, Mar. 5, 1997]
### §§343 to 347. Repealed. Apr. 19, 1946, ch. 142, 60 Stat. 96

Section 343, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title III, §313, as added Apr. 1, 1944, ch. 150, 58 Stat. 146, related to penalties under sections 341 to 347 of this title.

Section 344, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title III, §314, as added Apr. 1, 1944, ch. 150, 58 Stat. 146, related to prohibition on taking polls. See section 596 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Section 344 was also repealed by act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §21, 62 Stat. 862.

Section 345, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title III, §315, as added Apr. 1, 1944, ch. 150, 58 Stat. 147, related to certain State officials.

Section 346, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title III, §316, as added Apr. 1, 1944, ch. 150, 58 Stat. 147, related to agencies acting for the Secretary of State.

Section 347, act Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, title III, §317, as added Apr. 1, 1944, ch. 150, 58 Stat. 147, related to construction of chapter.
#### UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

No. 189, Docket 22962.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued March 11, 1954

Decided March 24, 1954.

Geo. Stephen Leonard, Atty., Dept, of Justice, .New York City (Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Simon S. Cohen, U. S. Atty., Hartford, Conn., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Thomas J. O’Sullivan, New Haven, _ . , „ ’ Conn., for defendant-appellant.

Before CLARK, MEDINA, and HARLAN’ CirCuit Judges‘

PER CURIAM.

 In giving judgment against defendant carrier for potatoes damaged in shipment from Virginia to ConnectiCut, Judge Hincks fixed damages based on the market value at destination, citing Weirton Steel Co. v. Isbrandtsen-Moller Co., 2 Cir., 126 F.2d 593. Defendard; contends that it is liable for only nominal damages, since the potatoes, purchased' as part of the government’s program of price support, were being sent ag a gift to the Connecticut State Hospital at Middletown, Connecticut. ruie applied is the usual one under the Cummins Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 20(11), and is not to be varied by special agreement of the parties or, we agree, by special circumstance of one of the parties. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., 253 U.S. 97, 40 S.Ct. 504, 64 L.Ed. 801, and see Illinois Central R. Co. v. Crail, 281 U.S. 57, 65, 66, 50 S.Ct. 180, 74 L.Ed. 699, 67 A.L.R. 1423. The case of United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., D.C.Minn., 116 F.Supp. 277, and a similar unreported case from the District of Idaho are distinguishable because they allowed damages for such potatoes at an agreed (though very much reduced) price set to prospective purchasers; but it is doubtful if these decisions accord with Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., supra. As Judge Hincks succinctly said: The carrier s part in the national program was to carry not destroy.” So it should not receive the benefit of the intended donation — in the stead of the State Hospital.

Judgment affirmed.
No. 8021.

#### Ricketts *v.*Brown.

(Decided January 12, 1904.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Messrs. Horstman & Horstman*and *Mr. G. H. Kattenhorn*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W. A. Hicks,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
### §41. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §21, 62 Stat. 862

Section, act June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title VIII, §4, 40 Stat. 226, defined "Foreign government". See section 11 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Sept. 1, 1948, see section 38 of act June 25, 1948, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 1 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
##### 



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 Annual Report of
Intervoice, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the period ended February 29, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David W. Brandenburg, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of operations of the Company.



| |                                     
| | ------------------------------------
| | /s/ DAVID W. BRANDENBURG            
| |                                     
| | David W. Brandenburg                
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman

Date: May 14, 2004
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60190

ANTONIO VIZCAINO-CHACON, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A35-891-463

-------------------- March 7, 2002 Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Antonio Vizcaino-Chacon petitions for review of an order ofthe Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) holding that VizcainoChacon’s state conviction for felony driving while intoxicated was an aggravated felony warranting his removal from this country. The respondent has moved to dismiss the petition for review and to remand the case to the BIA for reconsideration in light of United States v. Chapa-Garza , 243 F.3d 921, 927 (5th Cir. 2001). Vizcaino-Chacon has not replied to the respondent’s motion to remand.No. 01-60190 -2- Vizcaino-Chacon’s petition for review is GRANTED. The order of the BIA is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the BIA for disposition consistent with Chapa-Garza , 243 F.3d at 927. All other outstanding motions are DENIED.