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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1386 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1386

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on Project 2025.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2024

Ms. Underwood submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
             the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on Project 2025.

Whereas Project 2025, if enacted, would strip away Americans' most fundamental 
        rights and freedoms;
Whereas Project 2025, if enacted, would devastate working families across 
        America, raising costs, lowering wages, destroying our environment, and 
        dismantling access to health care;
Whereas Project 2025, if enacted, would slash vital lifelines like Social 
        Security and Medicare and make hardworking American taxpayers work 
        longer for less;
Whereas Project 2025, if enacted, would remove protections for people with pre-
        existing health conditions, raise prescription drug prices, ban Medicare 
        from negotiating lower drug costs, and put a new tax on health insurance 
        for people who get coverage at work;
Whereas Project 2025, if enacted, would criminalize abortion nationwide, 
        restrict access to birth control, and even ban fertility services like 
        IVF;
Whereas Project 2025, if enacted, would allow government agents to monitor 
        pregnancies to potentially prosecute parents if they miscarry;
Whereas Project 2025, if enacted, would cut school meals for kids, end Head 
        Start for preschoolers, slash public school funding, and fire teachers 
        across the country;
Whereas Project 2025, if enacted, would raise costs and slash investments for 
        working families to give huge new tax breaks to billionaires, CEOs, and 
        the biggest corporations;
Whereas Project 2025, if enacted, threatens America's national security and our 
        ability to compete across the globe;
Whereas Project 2025, if enacted, would destroy fundamental checks and balances 
        on Presidential powers; and
Whereas Project 2025, if enacted, would terminate the United States 
        Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives condemns in the 
strongest terms Project 2025.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered March 22, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01316
- CR
BERNARD EUGENE BROOK INS, JR, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from th e 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219
- 83124
- 2017



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s March 20, 2019 motion seeking access to the record in order to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED to the extent we ORDER appellant’s counsel to send appellant copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s records and to provide this Court, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, with written
verification that the record has been sent t o appellant. Appellant’s pro se response to the Anders brief is due by May 20, 2019 . If appellant does not file a pro se response by May 20, 2019, the appeal will be submitted upon the brief of
counsel.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this ord er, by electronic transmission, to appellant’s counsel and to counsel for the State.– 2

–

We further DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first

- class mail, to Bernard Eugene Brookins, Jr., TDCJ No. 02232157, Coffield Unit, 2661 FM 2054, Tennessee C olony , Texas 758 84

. /s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
### §321f. Nuclear incident response

#### (a) In general

At the direction of the Secretary (in connection with an actual or threatened terrorist attack, major disaster, or other emergency in the United States), the Nuclear Incident Response Team shall operate as an organizational unit of the Department. While so operating, the Nuclear Incident Response Team shall be subject to the direction, authority, and control of the Secretary.

#### (b) Rule of construction

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to limit the ordinary responsibility of the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for organizing, training, equipping, and utilizing their respective entities in the Nuclear Incident Response Team, or (subject to the provisions of this subchapter) from exercising direction, authority, and control over them when they are not operating as a unit of the Department.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title V, §517, formerly §504, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2213; renumbered §517, Pub. L. 109–295, title VI, §611(6), Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1395.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 314 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 109–295.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as
an officer of Handleman Company (the Registrant) that the Annual Report of the Registrant on Form 10-K for the period ended April 28, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Registrant for such period.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                  
|------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 29, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen Strome                               
|                    |  |  |  | STEPHEN STROME                                   
|                    |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



|                    |  |  |  |                                                     
|------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: June 29, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas C. Braum, Jr.                            
|                    |  |  |  | THOMAS C. BRAUM, JR.                                
|                    |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



These certifications are not deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange
Act), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification will not be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent the Registrant
specifically incorporates it by reference.
### §1301a. References to parity prices, etc., in other laws after January 1, 1950

All references in other laws to—

(1) parity,

(2) parity prices,

(3) prices comparable to parity prices, or

(4) prices to be determined in the same manner as provided by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 [7 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.] prior to its amendment by this Act for the determination of parity prices,

with respect to prices for agricultural commodities and products thereof, shall hereafter be deemed to refer to parity prices as determined in accordance with the provisions of section 301(a)(1) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 [7 U.S.C. 1301(a)(1)], as amended by this Act.

(July 3, 1948, ch. 827, title III, §302(f), 62 Stat. 1258.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, referred to in par. (4), is act Feb. 16, 1938, ch. 30, 52 Stat. 31, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1281 of this title and Tables.

This Act, referred to in par. (4) and concluding provisions, is act July 3, 1948, ch. 827, 62 Stat. 1247, known as the Agricultural Act of 1948, titles II and III of which became effective Jan. 1, 1950. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1948 Amendment note set out under section 1281 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Agricultural Act of 1948, and not as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1950, see section 303 of act July 3, 1948, set out as an Effective Date of 1948 Amendment note under section 1301 of this title.
1 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3735

___________ Cheryl Brewer Southworth, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Missouri Department of Corrections, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant, * * Correctional Medical Services, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 6, 2007 Filed: December 27, 2007

___________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Missouri inmate Cheryl Brewer Southw orth appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment to Correctional Medical Services (CMS) in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We review de novo the gran t of summary judgment, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Southworth. See Alberson v. Norris , 458 F.3d-2- 762, 765 (8th Cir. 2006). To prevail in an Eighth Amendment lawsuit, an inmate must show that her known serious medical need s were deliberately disregarded. Seeid. To defeat CMS’s summary judgment motion, Southworth had to create trialworthy issues as to whether there was a CMS policy, custom, or action by those who represent official CMS policy, that inflicted an Eighth Amendment injury. SeeSanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 984 F.2d 972, 975-76 (8th Cir. 1993) (corporate liability under § 1983).

While Southworth offered documents showing that her physical and mental condition significantly deteriorated during the period at issue, she did not establish a jury question as to whether there was a CM S policy or custom of denying appropriate tests and treatment to inmates who exhibi t the signs and symptoms she reported or experienced, or as to whether financial concerns dictated diagnostic and treatment decisions. See Moody v. St. Charles County , 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir. 1994) (party seeking to defeat summary judgm ent must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence to permit finding in his favor based on more than speculation or conjecture). Southworth could not defeat summary judgment with articles about CMS and prison medical care in general, or by offering the views of laypersons that CMS provide d Southworth with inadequate care, and that CMS providers are known to base their treatment decisions on cost. See Brooks v. TriSystems, Inc. , 425 F.3d 1109, 1111 (8th Cir. 2005) (h earsay cannot be used to defeat summary judgment motion); Perry v. Kemna , 356 F.3d 880, 889 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that newspaper articles were hear say and also unrelated to proceedings); Erickson v. Farmland Indus., Inc. , 271 F.3d 718, 728 (8th Cir. 2001) (affidavits opposing summary judgment shall be made on personal knowledge, and show affirmatively that affiant is competent to testify to matters stated therein).
Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny the pending motions.

______________________________
Editorial Note on Part 817
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 817 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 817.66 Use of explosives: Blasting signs, warnings, and access control. ( a ) *Blasting signs.* Blasting signs shall meet the specifications of § 817.11. The operator shall— ( 1 ) Conspicuously place signs reading “Blasting Area” along the edge of any blasting area that comes within 100 feet of any public-road right-of-way, and at the point where any other road provides access to the blasting area; and
( 2 ) At all entrances to the permit area from public roads or highways, place conspicuous signs which state “Warning! Explosives in Use,” which clearly list and describe the meaning of the audible blast warning and all-clear signals that are in use, and which explain the marking of blasting areas and charged holes awaiting firing within the permit area.
( b ) *Warnings.* Warning and all-clear signals of different character or pattern that are audible within a range of 1 ⁄ 2 mile from the point of the blast shall be given. Each person within the permit area and each person who resides or regularly works within 1 ⁄ 2 mile of the permit area shall be notified of the meaning of the signals in the blasting notification required in § 817.64(a).
( c ) *Access control.* Access within the blasting areas shall be controlled to prevent presence of livestock or unauthorized persons during blasting and until an authorized representative of the operator has reasonably determined that— ( 1 ) No unusual hazards, such as imminent slides or undetonated charges, exist; and
( 2 ) Access to and travel within the blasting area can be safely resumed.
[48 FR 9810, Mar. 8, 1983, as amended at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017]
FREMONT

CARBON

SWEETWATER

ALBANY

NATRONA

SUBLETTE

LINCOLN

CONVERSE

CROOK

UINTA

LARAMIE

WESTON

PLATTE

GOSHEN

NIOBRARA

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

Bridger-Teton

Thunder 

Basin

Medicine-Bow

Medicine-Bow

Rawlins

Casper

Rock Springs

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Yellowstone Newcastle

National Park

Lusk

Yoder

Hanna

Baggs

Afton

Hulett

Glendo

Casper

Douglas

Bairoil

Rawlins

Laramie

Superior

Sundance

Saratoga

La Barge Guernsey

Pinedale

Kemmerer

Evanston

Cheyenne

Wheatland

Wamsutter

Cokeville

Chugwater

Big Piney

Newcastle

Torrington

Rock River

Pine Bluffs

Green River

Medicine Bow

Fort Laramie

Elk Mountain

Rock Springs

Grand Encampment

0 25 50 100

Miles

0 25 50 100

Kilometers

Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Land Use Plan Amendments

o

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF 

THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

LUP Amendments Planning Area

BLM Field Office Boundary

Forest Service Planning Unit Boundary

Parturition Areas

Crucial Severe Winter Relief

Crucial Winter

Crucial Yearlong

Yearlong/Severe Winter Relief

Spring/Summer/Fall

Winter

Winter/YearLong

Yearlong

Counties

Water

Interstate

State / US Hwy

Cities

Map 3-26: Pronghorn 

Habitat Locations
#### GOLDBERG, Respondent, v. LONDON et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 20, 1903.)

Action by Harris Goldberg against Reuben London and another. From an order amending plaintiff’s summons herein, defendants appeal. Modified. O. C. Bernheimer, for appellants. A. H. Sarasobn, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from should be modified by striking out the provision awarding costs to the plaintiff, and granting the motion upon the payment of $10 costs by the plaintiff to the defendants, and as thus modified affirmed, with costs to the appellants.

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

I dissent. I think that the order appealed from should be reversed on the ground that the court could never acquire jurisdiction by the service of a summons of the character of the one in the case at bar, notwithstanding the decisions to the contrary.
#### § 34.10 Purpose of financial and program management.

Sections 34.11 through 34.17 prescribe standards for financial management systems; methods for making payments; and rules for cost sharing and matching, program income, revisions to budgets and program plans, audits, allowable costs, and fee and profit.
### §8903b. Authority to readmit an employee organization plan

(a) In the event that a plan described by section 8903(3) or 8903a is discontinued under this chapter (other than in the circumstance described in section 8909(d)), that discontinuation shall be disregarded, for purposes of any determination as to that plan's eligibility to be considered an approved plan under this chapter, but only for purposes of any contract year later than the third contract year beginning after such plan is so discontinued.

(b) A contract for a plan approved under this section shall require the carrier—

(1) to demonstrate experience in service delivery within a managed care system (including provider networks) throughout the United States; and

(2) if the carrier involved would not otherwise be subject to the requirement set forth in section 8903a(c)(1), to satisfy such requirement.

(Added Pub. L. 105–266, §6(a)(1), Oct. 19, 1998, 112 Stat. 2368.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 105–266, §6(a)(3), Oct. 19, 1998, 112 Stat. 2369, provided that:

"(A) In general.—The amendments made by this subsection [enacting this section] shall apply as of the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 19, 1998], including with respect to any plan which has been discontinued as of such date.

"(B) Transition rule.—For purposes of applying section 8903b(a) of title 5, United States Code (as amended by this subsection) with respect to any plan seeking to be readmitted for purposes of any contract year beginning before January 1, 2000, such section shall be applied by substituting 'second contract year' for 'third contract year'."
#### § 274.4 U.S. guaranty.

Under section 24 of the Foreign Military Sales Act (22 U.S.C. 2764), any individual, corporation, partnership, or other juridical entity (excluding U.S. Government agencies) will be guaranteed against political and credit risks of nonpayment arising out of their financing of credit sales of defense articles and defense services to friendly countries and international organizations. Section 24 explicitly provides that guarantees thereunder are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Fees in the amount of one-fourth of 1 percent of the amount of credits agreed upon shall be charged for such guaranties.
§ 2400.23 Prohibition. In response to a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, or the mandatory review provisions of Executive Order 12356 and Directive No. 1, or this regulation: ( a ) The Office of Science and Technology Policy shall refuse to confirm or deny the existence or non-existence of requested information whenever the fact of its existence or non-existence is itself classifiable under Executive Order 12356.
( b ) When the Office of Science and Technology Policy receives any request for documents in its custody that were classified by another agency, it shall refer copies of the request and the requested documents to the originating agency for processing, and may, after consultation with the originating agency, inform the requester of the referral. In cases which the originating agency determines in writing that a response under paragraph (a) of this section is required, the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall respond to the requester in accordance with that paragraph.
EXHIBIT No. 23.01




                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


            As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
            incorporation of our report dated February 7, 1997, included
            in this Form 10-K, into Sbarro, Inc.'s previously filed
            Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 33-39637) and
            Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-4380, 33-39636 and 33-68486).  It
            should be noted that we have performed no audit procedures
            subsequent to February 7, 1997, the date of our report.
            Furthermore, we have not audited any financial statements of
            Sbarro, Inc. as of any date or for any period subsequent to
            December 29, 1996.

                                          /s/  Arthur Andersen LLP



            New York, New York
            March 26, 1997
### §102101. General provisions

(a) Limitation.—

(1) No lease or grant of a privilege that interferes with free access.—No natural curiosity, wonder, or object of interest shall be leased or granted to anyone on such terms as to interfere with free access by the public to any System unit.

(2) Exception for grazing livestock.—The Secretary, under such regulations and on such terms as the Secretary may prescribe, may grant the privilege to graze livestock within a System unit when, in the Secretary's judgment, the use is not detrimental to the primary purpose for which the System unit was created. This paragraph does not apply to Yellowstone National Park.

(b) Advertising and Competitive Bids Not Required.—The Secretary may grant privileges and enter into leases described in subsection (a), and enter into related contracts with responsible persons, firms, or corporations, without advertising and without securing competitive bids.

(c) Assignment or Transfer.—No contract, lease, or privilege described in subsection (a) or (b) that is entered into or granted shall be assigned or transferred by the grantee, lessee, or licensee without the prior written approval of the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3152.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 102101 | 16 U.S.C. 3 (last sentence). | Aug. 25, 1916, ch. 408, §3 (last sentence), 39 Stat. 535; Mar. 7, 1928, ch. 137, §1 (matter relating to section 3 of the Act of August 25, 1916, in 12th undesignated par. under heading "NATIONAL PARK SERVICE"), 45 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 85–434, May 29, 1958, 72 Stat. 152; Pub. L. 105–391, title IV, §415(b)(1), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3515. |

Section

In subsection (a)(1), the word "rented" is omitted as included in "leases".

In subsections (b) and (c), the word "permit" is omitted for consistency because a permit is not mentioned earlier in the source provision.

In subsection (c), the word "lessee" is substituted for "permittees" for consistency in the section.