alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 917 

AN ACT 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to designate May 

1 as ‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’. 

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

†S 917 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Silver Star Service 

3 Banner Day Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

5 Congress finds the following: 

6 (1) Congress has always honored the sacrifices 

7 made by the wounded and ill members of the Armed 

8 Forces. 

9 (2) The Silver Star Service Banner has come to 

10 represent the members of the Armed Forces and vet11 erans who were wounded or became ill in combat in 

12 the wars fought by the United States. 

13 (3) The Silver Star Families of America was 

14 formed to help the people of the United States re15 member the sacrifices made by the wounded and ill 

16 members of the Armed Forces by designing and 

17 manufacturing Silver Star Service Banners and Sil18 ver Star Flags for that purpose. 

19 (4) The sole mission of the Silver Star Families 

20 of America is to evoke memories of the sacrifices 

21 made by members of the Armed Forces and veterans 

22 on behalf of the United States through the presence 

23 of a Silver Star Service Banner in a window or a 

24 Silver Star Flag flying. 
3 

†S 917 ES

1 (5) The sacrifices made by members of the 

2 Armed Forces and veterans on behalf of the United 

3 States should never be forgotten. 

4 (6) May 1 is an appropriate date to designate 

5 as ‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’. 

6 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 36, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘§ 146. Silver Star Service Banner Day 

11 ‘‘(a) DESIGNATION.—May 1 is Silver Star Service 

12 Banner Day. 

13 ‘‘(b) PROCLAMATION.—The President is requested to 

14 issue each year a proclamation calling on the people of 

15 the United States to observe Silver Star Service Banner 

16 Day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activi17 ties.’’. 

18 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

19 The table of sections for chapter 1 of title 36, United 
4 

†S 917 ES

1 States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relat2 ing to section 145 the following: 

‘‘146. Silver Star Service Banner Day.’’. 

Passed the Senate May 25, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 917 

AN ACT 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to desDay’’. ignate May 1 as ‘‘Silver Star Service Banner
Case: 3:12-cv-50076 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/29/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1
Case: 3:12-cv-50076 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/29/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2
SIERRA 

CLUB 

FOUNDED 1892 

January 7, 2016 

Scott Mathias 

Associate Director 

Air Quality Policy Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Re: Review of Sulfur Dioxide Air Dispersion Modeling Submitted by NRG Power 

LLC for the W.A. Parish Electric Generating Station 

Dear Mr. Mathias: 

On September 17, 2015, and again on December 14,2015, Sierra Club submitted 

air dispersion modeling conducted by Wingra Engineering, S.C. that demonstrated that 

sulfur dioxide ("S02") emissions from the W.A. Parish Electric Generating Station in 

Thompsons, Texas cause downwind S02 ambient air concentrations to exceed the 75 

parts per billion National Ambient Air Quality Standard ("NAAQS"), which translates to 

196.2 micrograms per cubic meter C''llg/m3

"). In particular, the modeling demonstrated 

that the W.A. Parish plant causes downwind S02 concentrations as high as 231.2 llg/m3

. 

Accordingly, the area surrounding W.A. Parish should be designated nonattainment 

under EPA's 1-hour S02 NAAQS. 

On July 24, 2015, however, NRG Texas Power submitted modeling conducted by 

a third-party consultant, suggesting that the W.A. Parish power plant does not cause 

exceedances ofthe S02 NAAQS, and therefore should not be designated as 

nonattainment. 

Enclosed, please find the results of an independent review ofNRG's modeling 

analyses conducted by H. Andrew Gray, Ph.D., of Gray Sky Solutions. Dr. Gray's 

review concludes that NRG's modeling analysis relies on incorrect stack parameters and 

inappropriate surface data inputs. Correcting these errors results in S02 concentrations 

that are approximately 35% higher than NRG's modeling predicts. In fact, using the 

appropriate stack parameters and the recommended surface characteristics would increase 
Mr. Scott Mathias 

January 7, 2016 

Page2 

the modeled design value to at least 221 11g/m3- well beyond the acceptable NAAQS 

level. As Sierra Club's previously submitted modeling demonstrates, those exceedances 

are even greater when nearby sources of S02 are taken into account. Accordingly, the 

area surrounding W.A. Parish should be designated nonattairunent under the NAAQS. 

We urge EPA to consider this information as it undertakes area designations in 

Texas for the 2010 revised primary S02 NAAQS. This information is being provided to 

both EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Region 6. In the 

meantime, please let me know if I can provide any additional information. 

Thank you for your attention to and consideration of this matter, and please do not 

hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss further. 

Joshua S ith 

Staff Atto ey 

Sierra Club 

85 Second St., Second Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Phone: (415) 977-5560 

Fax: (415) 977-5793 

joshua.smith@sierraclub.org
### §1605. Authorization of appropriations

(a) There is authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for administering this chapter.

(b) Funds appropriated for carrying into effect the purpose of this chapter shall be available for allotment by the Secretary of Agriculture to the bureaus and offices of the Department of Agriculture and for transfer to other departments and agencies of the Government which the Secretary of Agriculture may call upon to assist or cooperate in carrying out such purposes or for services rendered or to be rendered in connection therewith.

Appropriations made under this authorization, within the limit prescribed in such appropriations, may be expended for the share of the United States in the expense of the International Seed Testing Congress in carrying out plans for correlating the work of the various adhering governments on problems relating to seed analyses or other subjects which the Congress may determine to be necessary in the interest of international seed trade.

(Aug. 9, 1939, ch. 615, title IV, §415, 53 Stat. 1289; Sept. 21, 1944, ch. 412, title VII, §701(b), 58 Stat. 741.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1944—Act Sept. 21, 1944, added last par.

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

#### Effective Date

See section 1610 of this title.
1836.602-1 Selection criteria. (NASA supplements paragraph (a)) ( a ) ( 2 ) The evaluation of specialized experience and technical competence shall be limited to the immediately preceding ten years.
( 4 ) The evaluation of past performance shall be limited to the immediately preceding ten years.
( 6 ) The architect-engineer selection board may also establish evaluation criteria regarding the volume of work previously awarded to the firm by NASA, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified architect-engineer firms, including minority-owned firms and firms that have not had prior NASA contracts.
[62 FR 4471, Jan. 30, 1997, as amended at 66 FR 53548, Oct. 23, 2001]
### §§904 to 907. Repealed. June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title IV, §403(a)(42), 66 Stat. 280, eff. Dec. 24, 1952

Section 904, act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subchap. V, §504, 54 Stat. 1172, related to repeals.

Section 905, act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subchap. V, §505, 54 Stat. 1174, related to separability clause.

Section 906, act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subchap. V, §505, 54 Stat. 1174, related to effective date of chapter.

Section 907, act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, §1, 54 Stat. 1137, related to short title of chapter.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Specific Repeals by Act October 14, 1940

In addition to the provisions from which former section 904 was taken, section 504 of act Oct. 14, 1940, specifically repealed all or parts of the following: Title 8, §§1, 3, 5a–1, 5d, 5e, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9a, 11, 16, 17, 17a, 18, 106, 106a, 106b, 106c, 351, 352, 353, 354, 356, 356a, 357, 358, 358a, 360, 362, 364, 365, 366, 366a, 367, 368, 368a, 369, 369a, 372, 372a, 373, 377, 377b, 377c, 378, 379, 380, 380a, 380b, 381, 382, 382a, 382b, 382c, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 392b, 392c note, 392d note, 392e, 392f, 392g, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 399a, 399b, 399c, 399d, 399e, 399f, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415; Title 18, §§135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143; Title 39, §324; Title 48, §733b; former Title 50 App., §202.
#### 1516.370 Solicitation provision.

The solicitation document shall state whether any cost-sharing is required, and may set forth a target level of cost-sharing. Although technical considerations are normally most important, the degree of cost-sharing may be considered in a selection decision when cost becomes a determinative factor in a selection decision.

[61 FR 14505, Apr. 2, 1996]
### §608e. Repealed. July 3, 1948, ch. 827, title III, §302(d), 62 Stat. 1258

Section, act May 12, 1933, ch. 25, title I, §8e, as added Aug. 24, 1935, ch. 641, §6, 49 Stat. 762; amended June 3, 1937, ch. 296, §1, 50 Stat. 246, related to determination of base period.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal 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.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DANYA DAVIS, SHANNON WEBB and )

BERNESSA WILSON, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 11-cv-07923

)

PACKER ENGINEERING, INC. and ) Honorable Judge Andrea R. Wood

PACKER GROUP, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AGAINST 

PLAINTIFF WEBB ON HIS HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIM

Defendant, Packer Engineering, Inc. (“Packer Engineering”), by and through its 

attorneys, Tressler LLP, hereby moves for judgment against Plaintiff, Shannon Webb (“Webb”), 

on his claim for hostile work environment, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in this matter. Count II of the Amended 

Complaint is a claim by Webb against Defendant for hostile work environment and retaliation in 

violation of Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq.

2. At the final pretrial conference on January 3, 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded 

that Webb is no longer pursuing a hostile work environment claim. 

3. As a result, judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant and against 

Plaintiff Webb on his hostile work environment claim.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Packer Engineering, Inc., respectfully requests this 

Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, Shannon Webb on his claim 

for hostile work environment. 
2

PACKER ENGINEERING, INC. 

By: /s/ James K. Borcia

One of Its Attorneys

James K. Borcia (jborcia@tresslerllp.com)

TRESSLER LLP

233 South Wacker Drive, 22nd Floor

Chicago, IL 60606-6399

(312) 627-4000

#680771
Team V – General and Non-Loan Programmatic Issues

Constituency Primary negotiator Alternate negotiator 

Students Clais Daniels-Edwards Serena Unrein 

Two-year Public 

Institutions of 

Higher Education 

David Baime Dr. Karla Leach 

Four-year Public 

Institutions of 

Higher Education 

John Curtice Karen Fooks 

Private, Nonprofit 

Institutions 

Scott Fleming Suzanne Day 

Private, Forprofit Institutions 

Elaine Neely Mark Pelesh 

Cosmetology 

Schools 

Ray Testa 

Work Colleges David Tipton Ian Robertson 

Minority-Serving 

Institutions 

Dr. Ray Keck Karl Brockenbrough 

Financial Aid 

Administrators 

David Gelinas 

Sandy Tallman 

David Smedley 

Diane Fleming 

State Student 

Grant Agencies 

Maureen Laffey Dr. Alan Edwards 

Business Officers 

and Bursars 

Nick Bruno John Higgins 

State Higher 

Education 

Executive Officers 

Dr. John Cavanaugh 

Special Issues

Campus Safety 

General 

Fire Safety 

Standards 

Hate 

Crimes 

S. Daniel Carter 

Brendan McCluskey 

Edward Comeau 

Michael Lieberman 

Phil Hagen 

Cristina Finch 

1
Law 

Enforcement 

Lisa Phillips Dolores Stafford 

Individuals with 

Intellectual 

Disabilities 

Stephanie Smith Lee 

Peer-to-peer File 

Sharing/Copyrighted Material 

Institutions 

Digital 

Content 

Owners 

Gregory Jackson 

David Green 

Matthew Arthur 

Jennifer Jacobsen 

2
#### 2033.215 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall use the clause at FAR 52.233-1, Disputes, with its Alternate I, where continued performance is vital to national security, the public health and safety, critical and major agency programs, or other essential supplies or services whose timely reprocurement from other sources would be impractical.
Session 1: December 4-7, 2017

**Issue Paper #4**

**Issue:**	Sanctions for Programs Based on D/E Rates

**Statutory cites:**20 U.S.C. § 1221e-3; 20 U.S.C. § 3474; 20 U.S.C. § 1231a; 20 U.S.C. §§ 1001(b)(1), 1002(b)(1)(A)(i), (c)(1)(A); 20 U.S.C. § 1088(b)

**Regulatory cites:**34 CFR §§ 668.403 and 668.410

**Summary of issue:**Under****the GE regulations, programs with D/E rates that are failing or in the zone are potentially subject to sanctions.  If a program has failing D/E rates for two out of any three consecutive award years for which rates are calculated or has a combination of zone and failing D/E rates for four consecutive award years for which rates are calculated, the program loses eligibility for title IV, HEA program funds for a period of three years.  Further, for three years, institutions may not seek to establish the eligibility of a program that is substantially similar to a program that is ineligible based on its D/E rates or that is substantially similar to a program that is voluntarily discontinued after receiving draft D/E rates that are failing or in the zone.  A program that could lose eligibility based on the next year’s D/E rates is also required to provide warnings to current and prospective students.  Any program that received failing final D/E rates in 2017 is currently required to provide these warnings. 

GE programs only have one year of calculated D/E rates at this point, and programs for which there is a pending alternate earnings appeal are not subject to sanctions during the pendency of the appeal.  Even though no GE program has lost eligibility under these sanctions at this point, it has been reported that some institutions have used the GE program information to adjust their program offerings, possibly to avoid sanctions.

The Department is considering whether the required GE disclosures are sufficient to inform enrolled and prospective students about the outcomes for program graduates, and whether to revise or remove the provisions that tie eligibility to performance under the D/E rates measure.  This discussion will also consider whether the GE regulations should still require an institution to provide warnings to current and prospective students based on a program’s D/E rates.

**Questions for consideration by the committee:**

· Should the Department retain or amend the regulations providing for a loss of eligibility for a lower-performing program?

· Are the program disclosures alone effective in helping enrolled and prospective students identify lower-performing programs with respect to job earnings?

· Should institutions be required to provide warnings to students about lower-performing programs?  How should the warnings be changed if the loss-of-eligibility provision is revised or removed?
#### 1852.209-71 Limitation of future contracting.

As prescribed in 1809.507-2, the contracting officer may insert a clause substantially as follows in solicitations and contracts, in compliance with FAR 9.507-2:

# Limitation of Future Contracting (DEC 1988)

(a) The Contracting Officer has determined that this acquisition may give rise to a potential organizational conflict of interest. Accordingly, the attention of prospective offerors is invited to FAR Subpart 9.5—Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

(b) The nature of this conflict is [describe the conflict].

(c) The restrictions upon future contracting are as follows:

(1) If the Contractor, under the terms of this contract, or through the performance of tasks pursuant to this contract, is required to develop specifications or statements or work that are to be incorporated into a solicitation, the Contractor shall be ineligible to perform the work described in that solicitation as a prime of first-tier subcontractor under an ensuing NASA contract. This restriction shall remain in effect for a reasonable time, as agreed to by the Contracting Officer and the Contractor, sufficient to avoid unfair competitive advantage or potential bias (this time shall in no case be less than the duration of the initial production contract). NASA shall not unilaterally require the Contractor to prepare such specifications or statements of work under this contract.

(2) To the extent that the work under this contract requires access to proprietary, business confidential, or financial data of other companies, and as long as these data remain proprietary or confidential, the Contractor shall protect these data from unauthorized use and disclosure and agrees not to use them to complete with those other companies.

(End of clause)

[61 FR 40549, Aug. 5, 1996]
New York State Department of Environmental Gonservation

Deputy Commissioner and General Gounsel

Office of General Counsel, 14tn Floor

625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-1500

Phone: (518) 402-9185 ' FAX: (518) 402-9018

Website: www.dec.nv.qov

Deborah Ritzko

NYS Departrnent of State

Division of Administrative Rules

41 State Street, Ste 330

Albany, NY 12231-0001

&

IH

w

Alexander B. Grannis

Commissioner

RFCEIVHD

Dear Ms. Ritzko: 

JAN 2 0 2009

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

Transmitted with this letter is the Notice of Adoption for revisio,",t ?SodfWLWr?l'tlAt5oo,

General provisions ;20r,permits and certificates; and 231, New Source Review for New and Modified

Facilities. Also transmitted are the Express Terms for Parts 200,201 and23l, Express Terms Summary,

Assessment ofpublic Commelts Surnmary and Certificate of Adoption. An electronic copy is also

heins transrnitted to nvsrcgister@,dos.state.ny'us'

Also enclosed with this filing are two copies of each of the following documents that are

incorporated by referencewith this adoption:

- 40CFR part 51, Section 51.100; Section 51.160 to 51.166; and Appendix W, pages 493-541

(July 2006);

- 40 CFR Part 52, Section 52.21' pages 14-60 (July 2006);

- 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix B, pages 241-247 (July 2006);

40 cFR Part 60, Section 60.1 to End and Appendices (July 2006);

- 40 CFR Part 61, pages 5-333 (July 2006);

- 40 CFR part 63, Section 63.1 to 63.599, S"ction 63.600 to 63.1199, Section 63.1200 to 63.1439'

Section 63.1440 to 63.6175, Section 63.6580 to 63.8830 and Section 63.8980 to End.

The followilg ilcorporated reference and incorporation-by-reference certification were filed in

your office on Octoblr Zt,iggO (filing no. 4896)'and on April 28, 1992 (f,rlin-g number l0l0):

please publish the enclosed documents in the next issue of the State Register.

Sincerely,

'--) 

,-, , )

/t /') /---/ ,"' L{,- /lL_l_r},

Alison H. Crocker

Enclosures

Deputy Commissioner and General Counsel
#### 1852.216-78 Firm fixed price.

As prescribed in 1816.202-70, insert the following clause:

# Firm Fixed Price (DEC 1988)

The total firm fixed price of this contract is $ [Insert the appropriate amount].

(End of clause)

[62 FR 3485, Jan. 23, 1997]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

(Bar Docket No. 3973)

#### *In re*The Complaint made against Charles Wayne Allphin, Jr., by the State Board of Law Examiners.

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

Whereas, In a proceeding conducted by the State Board of Law Examiners to inquire into the complaint of alleged professional misconduct by Charles Wayne Allphin, Jr., and

Whereas, Following a full hearing as to such complaint, the State Board of Law Examiners found that Charles Wayne Allphin, Jr., Lawrence, Kansas, was guilty of violating DR 6-101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (209 Kan. Ixxxiii, lxxxiv), and

Whereas, The State Board of Law Examiners has made a written recommendation to this Court that said Charles Wayne Allphin, Jr., be disciplined by “Suspension of the practice of law for an indefinite period” as provided by Rule No. 207 *(n)*(3), (211 Kan. ix), and

Whereas, The said Charles Wayne Allphin, Jr., pursuant to subdivision (o) of Rule No. 207 above, has in writing elected to accept such recommended discipline and to pay the costs of the proceeding, and

Whereas, Upon consideration of the record and being fully advised of the premises, the court accepts the recommendation of the State Board of Law Examiners.

It is, therefore, by the Court Considered, Ordered and Adjudged that the said Charles Wayne Allphin, Jr., be and he is hereby disciplined by this Court by suspension of the practice of law for an indefinite period, and that he pay the costs of the proceeding. It is further ordered that this Order of Suspension be published in the official Kansas Reports.

By order of the Court, dated this 3rd day of October, 1973.
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, LLC,

PATENT LITIGATION MDL No. 2303

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO−1)

On December 28, 2011, the Panel transferred 3 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1407. See _F.Supp.2d_ (J.P.M.L. 2011). Since that time, no additional action(s) have been

transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. With the consent of that court, all such actions have

been assigned to the Honorable James F Holderman, Jr.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are

common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and assigned to

Judge Holderman.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the

Northern District of Illinois for the reasons stated in the order of December 28, 2011, and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James F Holderman, Jr.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be

stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the

Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

 Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 5 Filed: 01/13/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:7
IN RE: INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, LLC,

PATENT LITIGATION MDL No. 2303

SCHEDULE CTO−1 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

DELAWARE

DE 1 11−00920 SonicWALL Inc. v. Innovatio IP Ventures LLC

DE 1 11−01139 Netgear Inc. v. Innovatio IP Ventures LLC

WISCONSIN WESTERN

WIW 3 11−00643 Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC v. Best Western

Arrowhead Lodge &Suites et al

WIW 3 11−00644 Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC v. Madison Marriott West

et al

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 5 Filed: 01/13/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:8