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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9857 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of 

higher education, as a condition of participation in programs under 

title IV of such Act, to establish a policy to award posthumous degrees 

to certain deceased students, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ (for herself, Mr. TONKO, Mrs. CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, and 

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

institutions of higher education, as a condition of participation in programs under title IV of such Act, to establish a policy to award posthumous degrees to certain 

deceased students, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘Mel’s Law’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9857 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO AWARD POSTHUMOUS DEGREES. 

2 (a) POSTHUMOUS DEGREES.—Section 487(a) of the 

3 Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(30) The institution certifies that the institu6 tion has established a policy to award posthumous 

7 degrees to deceased students who— 

8 ‘‘(A) had been enrolled in a degree pro9 gram at the institution; 

10 ‘‘(B) died prior to completing such pro11 gram; and 

12 ‘‘(C) at the time of death, were in aca13 demic standing consistent with the require14 ments for graduation from such program, as 

15 determined by the institution.’’. 

16 (b) ACCREDITATION CRITERIA.—Section 496(a) of 

17 the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1099b(a)) 

18 is amended— 

19 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through 

20 (8) as paragraphs (7) through (9), respectively; and 

21 (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the fol22 lowing: 

23 ‘‘(6) the standards for accreditation of the 

24 agency or association do not take into consideration 

25 the number of posthumous degrees awarded by the 

26 institution to deceased students;’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 9857 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this Act shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after 

3 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### PHELPS, Appellant, v. FARGO, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 27, 1905.)

Action by Julius E. Phelps against James C. Fargo, as president of the American Express Company. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### PEOPLE v. ROBINSON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 20, 1903.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York against Joseph Robinson.

No opinion. Motion granted.
Exhibit 99
                                                                      ----------

                                 Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Covanta Energy Corporation does hereby certify, to his
knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



Dated: May 13, 2003
                                                  /s/ Scott G. Mackin
                                        -------------------------------------
                                                   Scott G. Mackin
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: May 13, 2003
                                                 /s/ Scott G. Mackin
                                        -------------------------------------
                                                  Scott G. Mackin
                                             Principal Financial Officer






         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Covanta Energy Corporation and will be retained by Covanta
Energy Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
### §70103. Commercial payloads on space launch system

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) Launch vehicle.—The term "launch vehicle" means any vehicle constructed for the purpose of operating in, or placing a payload in, outer space.

(2) Payload.—The term "payload" means an object which a person undertakes to place in outer space by means of a launch vehicle, and includes subcomponents of the launch vehicle specifically designed or adapted for that object.

(b) In General.—Commercial payloads may not be accepted for launch as primary payloads on the space launch system unless the Administrator determines that—

(1) the payload requires the unique capabilities of the space launch system; or

(2) launching of the payload on the space launch system is important for either national security or foreign policy purposes.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3428; Pub. L. 114–90, title I, §117(a)(4), Nov. 25, 2015, 129 Stat. 718.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 70103(a) | 42 U.S.C. 2465c. | Pub. L. 101–611, title II, §203, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3206; Pub. L. 105–303, title II, §203(2), Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2855. |
| 70103(b) | 42 U.S.C. 2465f. | Pub. L. 101–611, title II, §206, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3207; Pub. L. 105–303, title II, §203(4), Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2855. |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "this section" are substituted for "this title", meaning title II of Public Law 101–611, because title II of Public Law 101–611 was previously repealed except for section 201 (a short title provision, classified to 42 U.S.C. 2451 note, in which neither defined term appears) and sections 203 (42 U.S.C. 2465c) and 206 (42 U.S.C. 2465f) of Public Law 101–611, which are restated in this section.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2015—Pub. L. 114–90 substituted "space launch system" for "space shuttle" in section catchline and wherever appearing in text.
#### § 947.824 Special performance standards—mountaintop removal.

Part 824 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—Mountaintop Removal,* shall apply to any person who conducts surface coal mining operations constituting mountaintop removal mining.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

November 14 , 2014

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER , Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER , Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER , Circuit Judge

No s

. 13

- 3553 & 14

- 1371

ROBERT L. WINSTON , Plaintiff

- Appell ant ,

v.

OFFICER O’BRIEN, et al Defendants.

APPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of I llinois , Eastern Division

.

No. 1:10

- CV

- 08218

Elaine E. Bucklo , Judge

.

O R D E R

It is ordered that the Amended Opinion issued on this date is substituted for the Opinion issued on November 7, 2014, which is now withdrawn.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                       492
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,386
<PP&E>                                          13,377
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,143
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,967
<SALES>                                         40,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,267
<CGS>                                           14,039
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,370)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,486)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,884)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,884)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)
        

</TABLE>
### §100722. Liability

(a) In General.—Subject to subsection (c), any person that destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any System unit resource is liable to the United States for response costs and damages resulting from the destruction, loss, or injury.

(b) Liability In Rem.—Any instrumentality, including a vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or other equipment, that destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any System unit resource shall be liable in rem to the United States for response costs and damages resulting from the destruction, loss, or injury to the same extent as a person is liable under subsection (a).

(c) Defenses.—A person is not liable under this section if the person establishes that—

(1) the destruction, loss of, or injury to the System unit resource was caused solely by an act of God or an act of war;

(2) the person acted with due care, and the destruction, loss of, or injury to the System unit resource was caused solely by an act or omission of a 3d party, other than an employee or agent of the person; or

(3) the destruction, loss, or injury to the System unit resource was caused by an activity authorized by Federal or State law.

(d) Scope.—Liability under this section is in addition to any other liability that may arise under Federal or State law.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3107.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 100722 | 16 U.S.C. 19jj–1. | Pub. L. 101–337, §2, July 27, 1990, 104 Stat. 379; Pub. L. 104–333, div. I, title VIII, §814(h)(3), Nov. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 4199; Pub. L. 106–176, title I, §120(c), Mar. 10, 2000, 114 Stat. 29. |

Section
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000

<S>                                                       <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             12-MOS
<CASH>                                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               17,000
<PP&E>                                                      2,558,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                629,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              1,952,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       4,832,000
<BONDS>                                                             0
<COMMON>                                                      681,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 50,788,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                1,952,000
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    0
<CGS>                                                         250,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               1,966,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            1,937,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            677,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             4,569,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         4,569,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                4,569,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     .07



</TABLE>
#### Mitchell *vs.*The State of Georgia.

[Warner, Chief Justice, being engaged in presiding over the senate organized as a court of impeachment, did not sit in this case.]

An order for one dollar, payable to the prisoner, and written in pencil, the amount being expressed in a figure one with two noughts, thus, $1.00, was delivered to him in payment of a debt for that sum, which was all that the drawer owed him. He presented it to the drawee for payment, and it then had a figure eight in place of the figure one, and he received payment accordingly:

*Held,*that with these facts and the order before them, the jury were justified in finding that the one had been altered to an eight, though a witness, using a microscope, testified that he could discern no trace of any alteration:

*Held,*also, that the jury could infer that the alteration was made by the prisoner, there being evidence that he could write, and no evidence to implicate any other person.

Bleckley, Justice.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 3, 2017

d0925 

# Order

Clerk October 3, 2017

153803

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153803

COA: 331428

Jackson CC: 15

- 004735

- FH

DEVANIOR DEVON SIMPSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of October 26, 2016, the application for leave to appeal the April 6, 2016

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the d ecisions in People v

Steanhouse (Docket No. 152849) and People v Masroor (Docket Nos. 152946

- 8). On

order of the Court, the cases having been decided on July 24, 2017, 500 Mich ___ (2017),

the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 756.21 Required amendments to the Crow Tribe's abandoned mine land reclamation plan.

Pursuant to 30 CFR 884.15, the Crow Tribe is required to submit to OSM by the date specified either a proposed amendment or a reasonable timetable, which is consistent with the Crow Tribe's established administrative and legislative procedures, for submitting an amendment to the Crow Tribe plan.

[61 FR 6509, Feb. 21, 1996]
#### § 90.100T Respirable dust standard.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 28482, Apr. 18, 2024.

The following is required as of April 14, 2025. After the 20th calendar day following receipt of notification from MSHA that a part 90 miner is employed at the mine, the operator shall continuously maintain the average concentration of respirable dust in the mine atmosphere during each shift to which the part 90 miner in the active workings of the mine is exposed, as measured with an approved sampling device and expressed in terms of an equivalent concentration, at or below 0.5 mg/m3.

[89 FR 28482, Apr. 18, 2024]
§ 57.4200 General requirements. ( a ) For fighting fires that could endanger persons, each mine shall have— ( 1 ) Onsite firefighting equipment for fighting fires in their early stages; and
( 2 ) Onsite firefighting equipment for fighting fires beyond their early stages, or the mine shall have made prior arrangements with a local fire department to fight such fires.
( b ) This onsite firefighting equipment shall be— ( 1 ) Of the type, size, and quantity that can extinguish fires of any class which would occur as a result of the hazards present; and
( 2 ) Strategically located, readily accessible, plainly marked, and maintained in fire-ready condition.
[50 FR 4082, Jan. 29, 1985, as amended at 50 FR 20100, May 14, 1985]
Exhibit 31.01

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Brian E. Simpson, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of FNB United Corp.;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects, the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 11, 2012 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ BRIAN E. SIMPSON   
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Brian E. Simpson       
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer



33
### §20701. Retention and preservation of records and papers by officers of elections; deposit with custodian; penalty for violation

Every officer of election shall retain and preserve, for a period of twenty-two months from the date of any general, special, or primary election of which candidates for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, or Resident Commissioner from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are voted for, all records and papers which come into his possession relating to any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting in such election, except that, when required by law, such records and papers may be delivered to another officer of election and except that, if a State or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico designates a custodian to retain and preserve these records and papers at a specified place, then such records and papers may be deposited with such custodian, and the duty to retain and preserve any record or paper so deposited shall devolve upon such custodian. Any officer of election or custodian who willfully fails to comply with this section shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(Pub. L. 86–449, title III, §301, May 6, 1960, 74 Stat. 88.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1974 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-05T08:55:40-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### In the Matter of Yale Employment Agency, Inc., Petitioner, v. Bernard J. O’Connell, as Commissioner of Licenses of the City of New York, Respondent.

Determination unanimously confirmed and the petition dismissed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### Eddie Cedeno et al., Appellants, v John J. McNulty, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 293]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated October 7, 2005, which denied their motion pursuant to CFLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability as against the weight of the evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the evidence preponderates so heavily in the plaintiffs favor that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets,*86 NY2d 744 [1995]; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Great deference is accorded to the credibility determinations of the jury, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see *Yau v New York City Tr. Auth.,*10 AD3d 654 [2004]; *Margiotta v Rock & Roll Livery,*302 AD2d 500 [2003]). Applying these principles to this case, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

*684The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are improperly raised on this appeal. Miller, J.E, Santucci, Florio and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### § 903.955 Certification of blasters.

Part 955 of this chapter, *Certification of Blasters in Federal Program States and on Indian Lands,* applies to the training, examination and certification of blasters for surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
#### § 939.846 Individual civil penalties.

Part 846 of this chapter, *Individual Civil Penalties,* shall apply to the assessment of individual civil penalties under section 518(f) of the Act.

[53 FR 3676, Feb. 8, 1988]
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.508-2 Changes in electric system map; recording.

Changes made in the location, electrical rating or setting within the mine electrical system shall be recorded on the map of such system no later than the end of the next workday following completion of such changes.