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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 65 

Relating to the disapproval of the proposed export to the Government of 

the Kingdom of Bahrain of certain defense articles and services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 10, 2018 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Relating to the disapproval of the proposed export to the 

Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain of certain defense articles and services. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the issuance of a letter of offer with respect to any 

4 of the following proposed exports to the Government of 

5 the Kingdom of Bahrain is hereby prohibited: 

6 (1) The proposed sale of 120 Guided Multiple 

7 Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) M31 Unitary 

8 Rocket Pods, six (6) rockets per pod, for a total of 

9 seven hundred twenty (720), described in Trans10 mittal No. 18–22. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 65 IS 

1 (2) The proposed sale of one hundred ten (110) 

2 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) M57 T2k 

3 Unitary missiles, described in Transmittal Number 

4 18–22. 

5 (3) The proposed sale of publications, personnel 

6 training and training equipment, software develop7 ment, United States Government and contractor en8 gineering, technical and logistics support services; 

9 and other related elements of logistical and program 

10 support intended for the items listed in the sale, de11 scribed in Transmittal Number 18–22. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
22.1304 Procedures. To verify if a proposed contractor is current with its submission of the VETS-4212 Report, the contracting officer may— ( a ) Query the Department of Labor's VETS-4212 Database via the Internet at *http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets4212.htm* under “Filing Verification”; and
( b ) Contact the VETS-4212 customer support via email at *VETS4212-customersupport@dol.gov* for confirmation, if the proposed contractor represents that it has submitted the VETS-4212 Report and is not listed on the verification file.
[80 FR 75910, Dec. 4, 2015, as amended at 83 FR 42573, Aug. 22, 2018]
');
	document.write('

## Key Staff

**Program Officers:**

Sarah Beaton, (202) 453-7221sarah.beaton@ed.gov

Claire Cornell, (202) 453-7958claire.cornell@ed.gov

Frank Frankfort, (202) 453-6173frank.frankfort@ed.gov

Kelly Harris, (202) 453-7346kelly.harris@ed.gov

Stacey Slijepcevic, (202) 453-6150stacey.slijepcevic@ed.gov

**Mailing address:**

FIPSE Home
## Proposed Rule: Final Confidentiality Determinations for Nine Subparts and Amendments to Subpart A and I under

the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule Meeting Documentation: Phone communication with American Petroleum Institute , April 16, 2012

Date EPA Staff Contact

Information (Name, email, phone #) Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.) Written Comments Provided? Did they also s ubmit to Docket? Date sent to EPA

CCD

4/16/12 Anhar Karimjee,

karimjee.anhar@epa.gov David Jacobson Jacobson.david@epa.gov API: Karin Ritter, ritterk@api.org EPA sought clarification on API's comment that some data elements, if made publicly available, would reveal information concerning exploratory wells. Comments previo usly provided and submitted to D ocket 4/6 /1 2
Welcome to the Risk Management Toolkit.  These tools are designed to assist those charged with implementing the Department's discretionary and formula programs with mitigating risk throughout the grants management process.  New tools are under development and will be added once available.

The Tools available include:

- Grants Training Courses  The Department's Grants Computer Based Training Courses are a set of 10 courses designed to ensure that the Department's grantees, subgrantees and other grants management and oversight staff understand and are able to execute their administrative and financial responsibilities within the confines of Federal regulations and directives.
- States' Risk Management Practices, Tools and Resources  These examples spotlight a combination of approaches states have taken in efforts to identify risk and better understand how sub-grantees are actually managing funds. In some cases, states have designed a prescriptive and detailed method of assigning and calculating risk levels; in other cases, states have established general monitoring practices and developed accompanying protocols, tools and instruments to conduct monitoring and oversight activities.
- Internal Controls Technical Assistance Presentation  A presentation developed to enhance internal controls among state entities.  This presentation defines internal controls and discusses the internal control framework, GAO's standards for internal control in the Federal government, OMB Uniform Guidance requirements for internal controls and the Department of Education's A123 internal control review process.
- RMS Project Management Presentation  A presentation designed to share effective project management strategies and provide tools to ensure the success of grant projects.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

Nos. 01-20975

 01-20976

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN WESLEY MANNING,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-201-1

--------------------

May 10, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this consolidated appeal, John Wesley Manning (Manning)

appeals two judgments by the district court revoking his

supervised release. He argues that the district court erred in

revoking his supervised release based upon a violation of 18

U.S.C. § 930(a), which prohibits the knowing possession of a

dangerous weapon in a federal facility. He argues that, even if

the revocation of his supervised release was proper, the cases

should be remanded so the district court can resentence him
No. 01-20975 c/w 01-20976

-2-

without taking into consideration the alleged violation under 18

U.S.C. § 930(a).

The revocation of supervised release was proper as Manning

pleaded true to two other violations of his supervised release. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583; United States Sentencing Guidelines

§§ 7B1.1, p.s., 7B1.3(a)(2), p.s. The 14-month sentences imposed

for each of the supervised release terms revoked were not in

violation of the law or plainly unreasonable. United States v.

Moody, 277 F.3d 719, 720 (5th Cir. 2001); United States

Sentencing Guidelines § 7B1.4(a), p.s. Moreover, a district

court’s imposition of consecutive sentences upon the revocation

of separate terms of supervised release is permissible. United

States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 929 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Although the transcript of the revocation hearing indicates

the district court made no finding that Manning violated 

18 U.S.C. § 930(a), the written judgment reflects that the

district court made such a finding. The case is therefore

remanded so the district court can conform the written judgment

to its oral pronouncement. See United States v. Martinez, 

250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001). 

We AFFIRM the district court’s revocation of supervised

release and the ensuing sentence, but we REMAND for the district

court to conform the written judgment to its oral pronouncement.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 199 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 199

           Designating June 2017 as ``Great Outdoors Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 22, 2017

  Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Peters, Mr. Gardner, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. 
     Risch, Mr. Heinrich, and Ms. Hirono) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                             August 2, 2017

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Designating June 2017 as ``Great Outdoors Month''.

Whereas hundreds of millions of people in the United States participate in 
        outdoor recreation annually;
Whereas Congress enacted the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act of 
        2016 (Public Law 114-249; 130 Stat. 999) to assess and analyze the 
        outdoor recreation economy of the United States and the effects 
        attributable to the outdoor recreation economy on the overall economy of 
        the United States;
Whereas regular outdoor recreation is associated with positive health outcomes 
        and better quality of life;
Whereas outdoor recreation is part of the national heritage of the United 
        States; and
Whereas June 2017 is an appropriate month to designate as ``Great Outdoors 
        Month'' to provide an opportunity to celebrate the importance of the 
        great outdoors: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates June 2017 as ``Great Outdoors Month''; and
            (2) encourages all people of the United States to recreate 
        in the great outdoors in June 2017 and year-round.
                                 <all>
```
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of  1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. All federal  agencies that provide grants of assistance are required to enforce Title VI.  The U.S. Department of Education gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs.

Examples of discrimination covered by Title VI include racial harassment, school segregation, and denial of language services to English learners. A  fuller list of Title VI issues OCR addresses appears here. The U.S. Department of Education  Title VI regulation (Code of Federal Regulations at 34 CFR 100) is enforced by the Department's Office for Civil  Rights.

The Title VI regulation prohibits retaliation for filing an OCR complaint or for advocacy for a right protected by Title VI. Title VI also prohibits  employment discrimination, but the protection against employment discrimination under Title VI is limited. As a result, most complaints OCR receives raising  race, color, or national-origin discrimination in employment are referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

For more information on Education and  Title VI please click here.

Links to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations:  - 42 U.S.C. 2000d ; 78 Stat. 252 (USCode.house.gov)
- 34 CFR Part 100
Exhibit 10.1

UMB                                   January 21, 2000
Bank


Mr. Ronald L. Krutzman
Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
Laclede Gas Company
720 Olive Street
St. Louis, MO  63101

Dear Ron:

UMB Bank, n.a. (the "Bank") is pleased to provide a $10,000,000.00 line of
credit maturing January 31, 2001 to Laclede Gas Company ("Laclede") for
general corporate purposes and for commercial paper backup.  The Bank will
consider requests for advances under the line of credit until January 31,
2001.  Our officers may, at their discretion, make short-term loans to
Laclede under the following terms.

All borrowings will be priced at Laclede's option at: (i) Bank's prime rate,
(ii) at Libor for a similar principal amount and maturity adjusted +1/4%, or
(iii) CD's adjusted +1/2% for available maturities up to 90 days.  Notes
issued under this line shall not exceed 90 days.  If a whole note is
outstanding with maturity after January 31, 2001, the note shall be renewed
in whole or in part provided no note shall mature later than May 1, 2001.

Interest shall be payable at maturity or on date of repayment.  Interest
shall be computed on the basis of actual 365/366 days for prime borrowings
and on actual 360 day basis for LIBOR or CD loans.  Notes issued may be
prepaid at any time without penalty.

It is understood that any loans obtained by any subsidiary of Laclede Gas
Company, whether or not they are guaranteed by Laclede Gas Company, are
excluded from this agreement and shall not be charged against the line of
credit described above.

Very truly yours,



s/Ken E. Kotiza
Ken E. Kotiza
Regional President

Main Office
6 South Broadway
P. O. Box 66919
St. Louis, Missouri
63166-6919
(314) 621-1000







                                 Page 22
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v J. D. Morris and Joseph Goldsmith, Appellants.

Appeals by defendants from two judgments (one as to each of them) of the County Court, Nassau County, both rendered October 26, 1977, convicting each of them of bribery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgments reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The defendants were charged with bribing a police officer to induce him to refrain from interfering with an illegal "policy operation” allegedly run by them. At trial the defendants denied making the alleged bribe and, further, raised the affirmative defense of entrapment. In completing its instructions to the jury on entrapment, the court charged: "[If] you find that the defendant has *[sic]*established such an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find the defendants not guilty of any charge in the indictment. If you are not so satisfied, beyond a preponderance of the evidence, then you may consider whether the People have proven the defendants’ guilt of the crime charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.” This charge impermissibly allowed the jury to consider the affirmative defense of entrapment prior to the determination of whether the prosecution had proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever an affirmative defense is raised, particular caution must be exercised to insure that the jury does not become confused and to insure that the prosecution’s burden of proof is not diminished *(People v Coates,*64 AD2d 1). Contrary to the trial court’s instructions, guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt before the jury may even consider the affirmative defense *(People v Coates, supra; People v Johnston,*47 AD2d 897). This is of the utmost importance in the instant case where the defendants have alternatively denied culpability and raised an affirmative defense. Since entrapment is in the nature of confession and avoidance, the very real possibility that the jury considered the affirmative defense of entrapment before first deciding whether guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt, largely precluded the possibility of acquittal by reason of the defendants’ denial of guilt (cf. *People v Johnston, supra).*Any such diminution of the prosecution’s burden of proof is necessarily prejudicial and requires reversal. In remanding for a new trial, we note that the defendants have been jointly represented throughout the criminal proceedings. Although the record contains no obvious indication of a conflict of interest, upon remand the court should fulfill its responsibility of inquiring as to whether the defendants have been made aware of the potential risks of joint representation (see *People v Gomberg,*38 NY2d 307). O’Con-nor, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
1480.902 Receipt of challenge. ( a ) An interested party must file any challenges against an offeror's representation with the cognizant CO.
( b ) The challenge must be in writing and must contain the basis for the challenge with accurate, complete, specific, and detailed evidence. The evidence must support the allegation that the offeror fails to meet the definition of “Indian Economic Enterprise” or “Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise” as defined in 1480.201 or is otherwise ineligible. The CO will dismiss any challenge that is deemed frivolous or that does not meet the conditions in this section.
( c ) To be considered timely, a challenge must be received by the CO no later than 10 days after the basis of challenge is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier. ( 1 ) A challenge may be made orally if it is confirmed in writing within the 10-day period after the basis of challenge is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier.
( 2 ) A written challenge may be delivered by hand, telefax, telegram, email, or letter postmarked within the 10-day period after the basis of challenge is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier.
( 3 ) A CO's challenge to a certification is always considered timely, whether filed before or after award.
( d ) Upon receiving a timely challenge, the CO must: ( 1 ) Notify the challenger of the date it was received, and that the representation of the enterprise being challenged is under consideration; and
( 2 ) Furnish to the offeror (whose representation is being challenged) a request to provide detailed information on its eligibility by certified mail, return receipt requested or electronic mail.
( e ) Within 3 days after receiving a copy of the challenge and the CO's request for detailed information, the challenged offeror must file, as specified at paragraph (d)(2) of this section, with the CO a complete statement answering the allegations in the challenge and furnish evidence to support its position on representation. If the offeror does not submit the required material within the 3 days, or another period of time granted by the CO, the CO may assume that the offeror does not intend to dispute the challenge and must not award to the challenged offeror.
( f ) Within 10 days after receiving a challenge, the challenged offeror's response, and any other pertinent information, the CO must determine the representation status of the challenged offeror and notify the challenger and the challenged offeror of the decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by other expeditious means including by hand, email, telefax, or telegraph if actual delivery can be shown, and make known to all parties the option to appeal the determination to the Director, Office of Acquisition and Property Management, Department of the Interior (PAM).
( g ) If the representation accompanying an offer is challenged and subsequently upheld by the Director of PAM, the written notification of this action must state the reason(s).
Case: 1:12-cv-04179 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cv-04179 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:11
Case: 1:12-cv-04179 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:12
Case: 1:12-cv-04179 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cv-04179 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:14
Case: 1:12-cv-04179 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:15
# C_2016396EN.01000301.xml

| 27.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 396/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 396/3

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2016/C 396/03)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Malta

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : The role of the Malta Community Chest Fund in Society

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : This coin is envisaged to commemorate the role of the Malta Community Chest Fund in Society through a programme for secondary school students entitled ‘From Children in Solidarity’. This programme identifies the social role of children in five different areas with the first theme being ‘Solidarity through Love’. This design was created by Ms Sarah Cilia a secondary school student who has expressed this theme through two hands forming a heart shape which displays a representation of the Maltese flag. At the bottom of the design is the inscription ‘MALTA 2016’. Two stylised representations of human bodies are designed on the left wrist and two on the right one.

Description of the design

From Children in Solidarity

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : November 2016

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


I, Nigel F. Penney, Chief Financial Officer of Chaparral Resources, Inc. (the
"company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

     1.   The company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
          ended June 30, 2005 ("Quarterly Report") fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

and

     2.   All of the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result
          of operations of the company.



Date: August 10, 2005




/s/ Nigel F. Penney
---------------------------------
Nigel F. Penney
Chief Financial Officer