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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1252 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1252

    Honoring the commitment and care of emergency medical services 
                               personnel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2024

Mr. Guest (for himself, Mr. Hudson, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. 
 Crenshaw, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Bacon, Mr. McCormick, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer, 
Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. Carey, 
  Ms. Wild, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. Joyce of 
  Pennsylvania, Mr. LaHood, Ms. Pettersen, Mr. Ezell, Mr. Lawler, Mr. 
  Kelly of Mississippi, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. 
  Joyce of Ohio, Ms. Stefanik, and Ms. Blunt Rochester) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Honoring the commitment and care of emergency medical services 
                               personnel.

Whereas emergency medical services personnel deliver care to patients in times 
        of critical need;
Whereas emergency medical services personnel are essential to ensuring effective 
        health care outcomes for patients;
Whereas emergency medical services teams give immediate treatment to trauma and 
        other critically ill patients, stabilize them, and transport them to an 
        appropriate level of care;
Whereas emergency medical technicians and paramedics work in ground and air 
        ambulances, often traveling long distances to reach patients and to help 
        them obtain needed care;
Whereas emergency medical services personnel cover territory in rural and 
        underserved areas that otherwise might not have access to care;
Whereas emergency medical services personnel answer the call 24 hours a day, 7 
        days a week;
Whereas emergency medical services personnel and other first responders often 
        place themselves in harm's way to protect and care for others in their 
        time of need; and
Whereas the week of May 19 to 25, 2024, has been designated as Emergency Medical 
        Services Week to recognize the contributions of the emergency medical 
        services community: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) honors the commitment and care of emergency medical 
        services personnel;
            (2) recognizes the importance of their role in our local 
        communities; and
            (3) expresses appreciation for their dedication to 
        delivering necessary health care to patients across the United 
        States.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

 

The undersigned officer of First National Lincoln Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), thiscertification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

Date: March 16, 2006

 

/s/ DANIEL R. DAIGNEAULT

Daniel R. Daigneault

President and Chief Executive Officer
### Part B—Additional Preparedness
§ 223.1 Purpose. This part: ( a ) Updates policies, assigns responsibilities and prescribes procedures for the implementation of 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) 128, which is the statutory basis for controlling unclassified information on the physical protection of DoD special nuclear material (SNM), SNM equipment, and SNM facilities. Such information is referred to as DoD UCNI, to distinguish it from a similar Department of Energy (DOE) program.
( b ) Identifies the authority to be used for denying disclosure of DoD UCNI pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552.
( c ) Supplements security classification guidance contained in DoD Instruction 5210.67,[1] DOE classification guide CG-SS-4,[2] and DoD/DOE joint classification guides by establishing procedures for identifying, controlling, and limiting the dissemination of unclassified information on the physical protection of DoD SNM.
Footnotes -
223.1
[1] Copies available on the Internet at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521067p.pdf .*
[2] Copies available to authorized recipients from the Director of Classification, Department of Energy.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEB 17, 2011

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-12239 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 Agency No. A097-956-106

SINESIA MARIA RABELO, 

a.k.a. Maria Rabelo Sinesia,

lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.

________________________

 Petition for Review of a Decision of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

 ________________________

(February 17, 2011)

Before BLACK, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Sinesia Maria Rabelo seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(BIA) order dismissing her motion to reconsider her second motion to reopen her

removal proceedings. On appeal, she challenges only the denial of her first

motion to reopen her removal proceedings and the merits of the underlying

removal order. We lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of Rabelo’s first motion

to reopen because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a

timely petition for review of that decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); AmayaArtunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (noting we

lack jurisdiction to consider claims not raised before the BIA). Our review on

appeal is thus limited to whether the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the IJ’s

decision denying the motion for reconsideration of the order denying Rabelo’s

second motion to reopen. Because Rabelo does not attack the BIA’s

determination that her second motion to reopen was numerically barred, or present

any argument that an exception existed that would overcome the number bar, she

has abandoned those arguments. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226,

1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (“When an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue,

that issue is abandoned.”). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition to the extent that Rabelo seeks to

challenge the IJ’s underlying order of removal and the denial of her first motion to

2
reopen. We deny the petition to the extent that she challenges the BIA’s denial of

her motion for reconsideration.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10315

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00025-MW-GRJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID MICHAEL ARVELO,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(October 7, 2014)

Case: 14-10315 Date Filed: 10/07/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Before HULL, MARCUS and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Chet Kaufman, appointed counsel for David Michael Arvelo, in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals 

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Arvelo’s conviction and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-10315 Date Filed: 10/07/2014 Page: 2 of 2
§ 176.45 Disposal of buildings and property. ( a ) *Public benefit transfer screening.* Not later than the LRA's submission of its redevelopment plan to DoD and HUD, the Military Development will conduct an official public benefit transfer screening in accordance with the Federal Property Management Regulations (41 CFR 101-47.303-2) based upon the uses identified in the redevelopment plan. Federal sponsoring agencies shall notify eligible applicants that any request for property must be consistent with the uses identified in the redevelopment plan. At the request of the LRA, the Military Department may conduct the official State and local public benefit screening at any time after the publication of available property described at § 176.20(b).
( b ) *Environmental analysis.* Prior to disposal of any real property, the Military Department shall, consistent with NEPA and section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), complete an environmental impact analysis of all reasonable disposal alternatives. The Military Department shall consult with the LRA throughout the environmental impact analysis process to ensure both that the LRA is provided the most current environmental information available concerning the installation, and that the Military Department receives the most current information available concerning the LRA's redevelopment plans for the installation.
( c ) *Disposal.* Upon receipt of a notice of approval of an application from HUD under § 176.35(c)(1) or § 176.35(d)(2), DoD shall dispose of buildings and property in accordance with the record of decision or other decision document prepared under § 176.45(b). Disposal of buildings and property to be used as homeless assistance facilities shall be to either the LRA or directly to the representative(s) of the homeless and shall be without consideration. Upon receipt of a notice from HUD under § 176.40(b), DoD will dispose of the buildings and property at the installation in consultation with HUD and the LRA.
( d ) *LRA's responsibility.* The LRA shall be responsible for the implementation of and compliance with legally binding agreements under the application.
( e ) *Reversions to the LRA.* If a building or property reverts to the LRA under a legally binding agreement under the application, the LRA shall take appropriate actions to secure, to the maximum extent practicable, the utilization of the building or property by other homeless representatives to assist the homeless. An LRA may not be required to utilize the building or property to assist the homeless.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Shipyard Injuries and Their Causes, 1941

              																	McCormack, George R. (George Robertson)					,	McElroy, Frank S. (Frank Shafer)					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Division of Industrial Relations. 						*Shipyard Injuries and Their Causes, 1941 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 722*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1943,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4217,			accessed on September 5, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
M. P. No. 77-144.

#### Anthony DeLuca *v.*Rhode Island State Board of Elections.

*DeSano & Thibodeau, Robert S. Goldman, Keven A. McKenna,*for petitioner.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *William Granfield Brody,*Special Asst. Attorney General, *Peter Palombo, Jr.,*City Solicitor, *Stephen F. Achille,*for respondents.

The findings of fact and determinations of the Board of Elections in this case have been received by this court.

The City Solicitor of the City of Cranston is directed to file a memorandum on behalf of the Board of Canvassers and the City Clerk of the City of Cranston, setting forth any matters which they wish this court to consider, within ten days of this order.

The petitioner is directed to file a reply to that memorandum with this court within ten days after receipt of the respondents’ memorandum.
From: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com [mailto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com] 

Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:20 PM 

To: Richard Parker 

Cc: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bob Smith; Brenda 

Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; 

Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; David Flaten; Emily 

Marchetti; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, 

Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna 

Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew 

Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; 

Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard W. Parker; Rick 

Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; 

Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom 

Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo 

Subject: NES savings in NIA: "relative to a base-case scenario of no standard" 

Mr Parker, 

Please find attached a page from Chapter 10, National Impact Analysis from the September 2011 

analysis that states that the NES are "relative to a base-case scenario of no standard." I'm interpreting 

this as meaning that the savings calculated are against the "affected stock", or the transformers that are 

currently in the field rather than the savings that are already to be gained as a result of the 2007 ruling, or 

EL0. 

If my interpretation of this is correct, the current NES analysis is "double counting" the energy savings 

which have already been implemented by the 2007 rule. Since we are comparing LCC and Payback 

against EL0, shouldn't the NES analysis be relative to the current EL0 standard rather than using a 

scenario of "no standard"? 

Regards, 

Eric Petersen Director Customer Technical Services and Research AK Steel Corporation 

Confidentiality Notice 

This message is intended exclusively for the individual or 

entity to which it is addressed and may contain privileged, 

proprietary, or otherwise private information. 

If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized 

to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or 

any part of it. If you have received this message in error, 

please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete 

all copies of the message.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,637
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,944
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,034
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,034
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,953)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (1,559)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (510)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
§ 245.9 Authority. ( a ) E.O. 12656, 18 November 1988, which assigns emergency preparedness functions to Federal departments and agencies.
( b ) E.O. 13074, Amendment to E.O. 12656, February 9, 1998.
( c ) E.O. 13286, Amendment of E.O. 13276, 13274, 13271, 13260, 13257, 13254, and 13231, and Other Actions, in Connection With the Transfer of Certain Functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security, February 28, 2003.
( d ) Title 10 U.S.C.—Armed Forces.
( e ) Title 49 U.S.C., Subtitle VII—Aviation Programs.
( f ) Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
( g ) Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-71), establishes the TSA and transfers civil aviation security responsibilities from FAA to TSA.
( h ) Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296), establishes DHS and transfers the transportation security functions of the DOT and Secretary of Transportation and the TSA to DHS.
( i ) DoD Directive 5030.19,[1] “DoD Responsibilities on Federal Aviation and National Airspace System Matters,” outlines DoD/ NORAD responsibilities for the development of plans and policies in concert with the DOT, FAA and USCG for the establishment of a system for identification and emergency security control of air traffic.
Footnotes -
245.9
[1] Copies may be obtained at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/dir2.html .*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM REGISTRANT'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                              451
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                       735
<ALLOWANCES>                          6
<INVENTORY>                         655
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   1929
<PP&E>                            21116
<DEPRECIATION>                     5355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    20857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1961
<BONDS>                            1000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                            219
<OTHER-SE>                        12457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      20857
<SALES>                            3901
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   4154
<CGS>                              4263
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      7340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   1135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 1138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (4321)
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (4321)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0 
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                      (4321)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (.22)
        



</TABLE>
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1290 

Recognizing June 12, 2024, as this year’s observance of ‘‘Philippines Independence Day’’ to honor the 126th anniversary of the independence 

of the Philippines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2024 

Mr. MOYLAN (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. BACON, Mr. CASE, Mr. 

VARGAS, Mr. SABLAN, and Mr. ISSA) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing June 12, 2024, as this year’s observance of 

‘‘Philippines Independence Day’’ to honor the 126th anniversary of the independence of the Philippines. 

Whereas Congress commends the people of the Philippines 

for enduring through struggle and hardship; 

Whereas Congress supports increased public awareness of the 

events surrounding the Philippine Declaration of Independence, and the vibrant and beautiful culture of the 

Philippines; and 

Whereas Congress supports the continuing development of 

the Filipino American community as an integral part of 

America’s cultural fabric: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1290 IH 

1 (1) recognizes the historic significance of the 

2 126th anniversary of the sovereign and independent 

3 country of the Philippines on June 12, 1898; 

4 (2) reaffirms the bonds of friendship and co5 operation which have existed between the United 

6 States and the Philippines and commits to strength7 ening those bonds; 

8 (3) reaffirms its support for the Philippines to 

9 defend its internal security from terrorism; 

10 (4) reaffirms its enduring support for the Phil11 ippines; 

12 (5) recognizes the courage and bravery of the 

13 Filipino and Filipino American servicemen and serv14 icewomen who have fought alongside and in the 

15 United States Armed Forces; and 

16 (6) supports the recognition of ‘‘Philippines 

17 Independence Day’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS