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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 14 

Amending title 36, United States Code, to direct the President to issue 

an annual proclamation establishing Democracy Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2023 

Mr. PHILLIPS (for himself, Mr. CROW, Mr. GOLDMAN of New York, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. 

PETERS, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. NORTON, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Ms. TITUS, Mr. 

FOSTER, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Mr. 

CA ́RDENAS, Mr. SWALWELL, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. LIEU, Mr. 

GOTTHEIMER, Mr. CARSON, Mrs. TORRES of California, Ms. MENG, Mr. 

MOULTON, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. STEVENS, 

Mr. COSTA, Mr. NEGUSE, Mrs. HAYES, Ms. MCCOLLUM, and Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Amending title 36, United States Code, to direct the President to issue an annual proclamation establishing Democracy Day. 

Whereas, on January 6, 2021, insurrectionists carried out a 

violent attack against the United States Capitol in a 

failed attempt to disrupt and harm lawmakers certifying 

the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election; 

Whereas the assault on the United States Capitol resulted in 

multiple deaths and physical harm to over 140 members 

of law enforcement; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 14 IH 

Whereas the tremendous bravery displayed by law enforcement officers helped ensure the successful and democratic 

transition of presidential power; 

Whereas the transition of presidential power has remained an 

unbroken tradition for more than 220 years and is a hallmark of American democracy; 

Whereas democracy is fragile and requires eternal vigilance 

to maintain it; and 

Whereas January 6 would be an appropriate day to designate 

as Democracy Day: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DEMOCRACY DAY. 

4 Chapter 1 of title 36, United States Code, is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 148. DEMOCRACY DAY. 

7 ‘‘The President shall issue each year a proclama8 tion— 

9 ‘‘(1) designating a day as Democracy Day; 

10 ‘‘(2) calling on State and local governments and 

11 the people of the United States to observe Democ12 racy Day with appropriate programs and activities; 

13 and 

14 ‘‘(3) urging civil and educational authorities of 

15 States, counties, cities, and towns to observe Democ16 racy Day through appropriate programs and activi17 ties.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HJ 14 IH 

1 SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT. 

2 The table of contents for chapter 1 of title 36, United 

3 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing new item: 

‘‘148. Democracy Day.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
From: Marni Karlin To: Sharrow, Michelle - AMS Subject: Re: Clarifying question re. Exemption of Organic Products From Assessment Under a Commodity Promotion Law Date: Monday, December 22, 2014 2:19:36 PM


### Thank you. Can you clarify what that language does mean?

Thanks.

On Dec 22, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Sharrow, Michelle - AMS < Michelle.Sharrow@ams.usda.gov > wrote:

Marni:
Your question concerns language that appears in the Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, analysis of the organic exemption proposal published in the December 16 th 

### Federal Register at 79 FR 75006. The preemption language, discussed in the referenced promotion laws, does not prevent the organic exemption proposal from going forward. Please submit any comments that you have on the proposed rule, as provided therein. Your question and response will be placed on the record.
Sincerely,

Michelle P. Sharrow Marketing Order and Agreement Division Agricultural Marketing Service U.S. Department of Agriculture

On Dec 18, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Marni Karlin < mkarlin@ota.com > wrote:

Hi Michelle,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my clarifying question! On page 75006, under “Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985”, there is language that reads “Section 11 of the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 2910) provides that it shall not preempt or supersede any other program relating to beef promotion organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any State.” There is similar language under the Generic Act, Dairy Production, Hass Avocado, Mushroom, Popcorn, and Soybean.

I do not understand what this language means. It concerns me that perhaps it means that the exemption for organic operations “shall not preempt or supersede” any other program – which would make theexemption ineffectual. Can you help me understand what the language means? Thanks!



### ________________________________________________ Marni Karlin Vice President of Government Affairs / General Counsel Organic Trade Association (OTA) | www.ota.com Direct: (202) 403-8511

Follow OTA on: <image001.png> <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png>



### This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.45


[BIOGEN LOGO]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOURTEEN CAMBRIDGE CENTER, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142 * 617-679-2000 * FAX 617-679-2838


                                        September 27, 2001



Sir Kenneth Murray
4 Mortonhall Road
Edinburgh EH9 2HW
Scottland, United Kingdom


Re: Renewal of Independent Consulting Agreement
    -------------------------------------------


Dear Ken:

     Your Independent Consulting Agreement with Biogen, Inc., dated June 29,
1979, as previously amended, (the "Agreement"), under which you serve as a
member of the Scientific Board of the Company expires on September 30, 2001.
Biogen greatly values your input on the Scientific Board, and would like to
renew the Agreement for an additional one-year period commencing as of October
1, 2001 and ending on September 30, 2002. The terms and conditions of the
Agreement will continue to apply during the renewal term except that
compensation for your services under the Agreement during the renewal term will
be as follows:

     1.   You will receive (i) a $20,000 per year retainer, (ii) $2,000 per day
          for attendance at Scientific Board meetings, plus reasonable travel
          and lodging expenses and (iii) $500 per day for time spent in Biogen's
          laboratories.

     As compensation for your service as a member of the Board of Directors you
will receive the standard board package and the following stock option grant:

     2.   Subject to approval by the Stock and Option Plan Administration
          Committee, on your renewal date, you will be granted an option to
          purchase 30,000 shares of Biogen Common Stock. The option will vest
          over three years (33-1/3% per year) and will be exercisable at a price
          equal to the average of the high and low sales prices on your renewal,
          as long as on such date you are still a member of the Board of
          Directors.

     If you agree to renewal of the Agreement on these terms, please sign both
copies of this renewal letter and return one copy to the attention of Stephen
McEvoy, Associate General Counsel, Biogen, Inc., 14 Cambridge Center, Cambridge,
MA 02142.


<PAGE>
     We look forward to your continued participation on the Scientific Board.


                                     Very truly yours,


                                     BIOGEN, INC.


                                     By: /s/ James C. Mullen
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         James C. Mullen
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer



                                     AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:



                                     /s/ Sir Kenneth Murray
                                     -----------------------------------------
                                     Sir Kenneth Murray
# C_2019321EN.01000101.xml

| 25.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

24 September 2019

(2019/C 321/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1003 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 118,45 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4661 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88153 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6763 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0878 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 137,20 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,9225 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,872 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 335,17 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3813 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7484 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,2553 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6189 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4586 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6265 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7428 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5145 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 313,66 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,3599 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8199 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4040 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 527,98 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6009 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,358 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,0259 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,630 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5759 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,3897 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,0635 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1003

JPY

Japanese yen

118,45

DKK

Danish krone

7,4661

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88153

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6763

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0878

ISK

Iceland króna

137,20

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,9225

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,872

HUF

Hungarian forint

335,17

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3813

RON

Romanian leu

4,7484

TRY

Turkish lira

6,2553

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6189

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4586

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6265

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7428

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5145

KRW

South Korean won

1 313,66

ZAR

South African rand

16,3599

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8199

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4040

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 527,98

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6009

PHP

Philippine peso

57,358

RUB

Russian rouble

70,0259

THB

Thai baht

33,630

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5759

MXN

Mexican peso

21,3897

INR

Indian rupee

78,0635

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
#### BROWN, Respondent, v. SMITH, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 23, 1906.)

Action by George E. Brown against Fred H. Smith. M. W. Divine, for appellant.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
HVACMOTORSDIRECT CURRENT(DC)U FRAMEMOTORSBRAKEMOTORSVECTORDUTYINVERTERDUTYMULTI-SPEEDTHREE PHASEC-FACE SINGLE &THREE PHASEEXPLOSIONPROOFSEVEREDUTYGEN. PURPOSETHREE PHASEGEN. PURPOSESINGLE PHASE



# www.emersonmotors.com 19

® 

### APPLICATIONS: Designed for air compressors, pumps, conveyors, blowers and general industrial equipment.



### FEATURES:

Double Shielded Ball Bearings * Class B Insulation, Continuous Duty, 40C Ambient * Capacitor Start, Induction Run * F1 Assembly * Reversible Rotation *

Voltage List Catalog Number Frame "C" Dim. (inches) Multiplier Symbol Ship Wt (lbs) Notes HP RPM Full Load Amps SF 6200 5.8/2.9 25 19 10.4 $251 115/230 56C 1/4 1800 DS-3FMP 1.15 6201 6.4/3.2 25 21 10.6 $248 115/230 56C 1/3 3600 DS-3FMP 1.00 T13CA1PC 6.4/3.2 24 20 10.5 $226 115/230 56C 3600 DS-3FMP 1.00 6209 4.2-3.9/2.1-2.0 23 21 11.9 $305 100-120/200-240 56C 1800 DS-3FMP 1.35 6210 4.2-3.9/2.1-2.0 24 22 11.9 $277 100-120/200-240 56C 1800 DS-3FMP 1.35 T13C2PC 6.8/3.4 25 21 10.5 $244 115/230 56C 1800 DS-3F 1.00 6202 8.0/4.0 25 22 11.3 $250 115/230 56C 1/2 3600 DS-3FMP 1.00 T12CA1PC 8.0/4.0 24 22 11.3 $262 115/230 56C 3600 DS-3FMP 1.00 6211 6.3-5.6/3.1-2.8 23 27 12.6 $350 100-120/200-240 56C 1800 DS-3FMP 1.25 6212 6.3-5.6/3.1-2.8 24 25 12.0 $328 100-120/200-240 56C 1800 DS-3FMP 1.25 T12C2PC 9.0/4.5 25 23 12.8 $310 115/230 56C 1800 DS-3F 1.00 6203 9.8/4.9 25 30 11.3 $281 115/230 56C 3/4 3600 DS-3FMP 1.00 T34CA1PC 9.8/4.9 24 27 11.3 $295 115/230 56C 3600 DS-3FMP 1.00 6213 9.2-8.4/4.6-4.2 23 33 12.3 $424 100-120/200-240 56C 1800 DS-3FMP 1.25 6214 9.2-8.4/4.6-4.2 24 32 11.3 $401 100-120/200-240 56C 1800 DS-3FMP 1.25 T1C1PC 12.0/6.0 25 28 11.4 $340 115/208-230 56C 1 3600 DS-3FMP 1.00 6215 11.0-9.2/5.5-4.7 23 40 12.5 $441 100-120/200-240 56C 1800 DS-3FMP 1.15 6216 11.0-9.2/5.5-4.7 24 43 12.6 $424 100-120/200-240 56C 1800 DS-3FMP 1.15 T1C2PHC 13.6/6.8 25 33 12.3 $399 115/230 56C 1800 DS-3F 1.00 T32C1PHC 15.6/7.8 25 42 12.9 $440 115/230 56HC 1-1/2 3600 DS-3FMP 1.00 T32C2PHC 17.6/8.8 25 41 12.8 $473 115/230 56HC 1800 DS-3F 1.00 6205 20.4/10.2 25 43 13.8 $552 115/230 145TC 2 3600 DS-3FMP 1.00 6204 20.4/10.2 25 42 13.3 $552 115/230 56HC 3600 DS-3FMP 1.00 6206 19.0/9.5 25 46 14.6 $684 115/230 145TC 1800 DS-3FMP 1.00 6207 19.0/9.5 23 34 14.6 $695 115/230 145TC 1800 DS-3FMP 1.00 T2C2PHC 19.0/9.5 25 43 13.3 $544 115/230 56HC 1800 DS-3F 1.00 6208 13.5 23 55 14.6 $620 230 145TC 3 3600 DS-3FMP 1.00

Note 23 Manual Reset Thermal Overload Protector Note 24 Note 25 Non-protected Automatic Reset Thermal Overload Protector 

# General Purpose Single Phase, Capacitor Start Totally Enclosed Fan Cooled (TEFC) C Face Footed
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10577

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Bradley C. Stark, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CR-258-1

Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

A jury convicted Bradley C. Stark on seven counts of wire fraud, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and one count of securities fraud, in violation 

of 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a) and 77x. The district court sentenced him to, inter alia, 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10577 Document: 00515667149 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2020
No. 20-10577

2

276-months’ imprisonment: concurrent 240-month terms on the wire-fraud 

counts; a consecutive 36-month term on the securities-fraud count. 

Proceeding pro se, Stark, federal prisoner # 69122-053, challenges the 

denial of his motion for: a sentence reduction; or compassionate release. 

Regarding a sentence reduction, he claims: Amendment 792 to the 

Sentencing Guidelines amended, inter alia, the “sophisticated means” 

enhancement under Guideline § 2B1.1. As for compassionate release, he 

maintains: he is vulnerable to the COVID-19 virus due to his obesity, 

hyperlipidemia, and family history of heart disease, high blood pressure, and 

stroke. Each claim fails.

For the sentence-reduction claim, a court, under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2), may reduce an imposed term of imprisonment based on a 

Guideline Amendment’s lowering a Guideline sentencing range. Stark 

acknowledges Amendment 792 was not listed in Guideline § 1B1.10(d) and, 

therefore, does not apply retroactively to his Guidelines sentencing range. 

Concerning the compassionate-release claim, the denial of a 

prisoner’s motion for such release is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Rivas, No. 20-10360, 2020 WL 6437288, at *2 (5th Cir. 2 Nov. 

2020). Defendant’s term of imprisonment may be reduced by a court if, inter 

alia, “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction”. 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court concluded there were no such 

reasons for Stark’s sentence reduction because: his medical conditions did 

not present a unique circumstance; and he was not at a heightened risk of 

exposure to the virus. There was no abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10577 Document: 00515667149 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2020
(July 15, 1964)

#### In the Matter of the Claim of Robert Lounsbury, Respondent, v. United States Gypsum Company, Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The board’s finding of a “definite link between * * * occupation and exposure * * * and the *aggravation*of a pre-existing bronchiectasis * * * necessitating a left pneumonectomy” (emphasis supplied) is not the equivalent of a finding of a link between the employment and the particular disease; that is, “ between the disease and some distinctive feature of the claimant’s job”, in which case the pre-existing condition would not bar an award if claimant developed "what would ordinarily be an occupational disease”. *(Matter of Detenbeck*v. *General Motors Corp.,*309 N. Y. 558, 562, 561.) Although, upon at least one record, bronchiectasis has been found to be an occupational disease *(Matter of Pinto*v. *Competent Fur Dressers,*271 App. Div. 1036, affd. 297 N. Y. 846), in this case claimant produced no proof upon this issue and his medical expert’s conclusions were limited to the aggravative effect of the exposure. Neither would the record support the finding of a new contracture. The underlying condition apparently originated in claimant’s childhood, as the result of his aspiration of a small stick, which was removed by bronchoscopy some months later. According to the doctor, claimant’s lung tissues had healed to the point that he was able to do hard manual labor and pass physical examinations, with satisfactory chest X rays, for military service and for various civilian employments; but the doctor did not say that there was a new contracture in the employment but confined his discussion to progression and aggravation. Decision reversed, with costs to appellant against the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and case remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
#### Anthony B. COOK, Appellant, v. Steve LONG, Asst. Director, Division Adult Institutions; Chuck Dwyer, Superintendent of SECC; Johnny Williams, Functional Unit Manager; Unknown Roach, C.O.I.; Unknown Holmes, C.O.I.; Unknown Williams, C.O.I., Appellees.

No. 06-2971.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2007.

Filed: Nov. 5, 2007.

Anthony B. Cook, Bonne Terre, MO, pro se.

Gail Vasterling, Attorney General’s Office, Jefferson City, MO, Denise Garrison McElvein, Lacey Searfoss, Attorney General’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellees.

*608Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Anthony B. Cook appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Cook filed this action naming six defendants; service was effected on three defendants who sought dismissal of the complaint based on Cook’s failure to state a claim and to exhaust his administrative remedies. After granting Cook additional time to respond, the district court dismissed the entire suit because Cook had not administratively exhausted all of his claims.

Under 42 U.S.C.1997e(a), a prisoner must exhaust all available administrative 'remedies before a civil action can be brought with respect to prison conditions. *See Graves v. Norris,*218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam). The Supreme Court recently clarified that administrative exhaustion is an affirmative defense that defendants have the burden to plead and prove, *see Jones v. Bock,*—U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 910, 919-22, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007), and that a lawsuit should not be dismissed in its entirety because some claims are unexhausted, *see id.*at 923-26.

We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for the court to dismiss only those claims that are unexhausted.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Cook’s pending motions are denied.
## Timeline

Current Competition: FY 2022Application Available: May 2, 2022 Application Deadline: June 16, 2022 Federal Register Notice: PDF (216K) 

## Current Application

Applications for the FY 2022 Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success are now being accepted.

**TO APPLY:**

The FY 2022 Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success application is available until June 16, 2022 via the Grants.gov website at **www.grants.gov**

## Tips and Assistance

Please follow the guidance published in the Federal Register Notice here and the application instructions in Grants.gov. 

**FY 2022 Centers  of Excellence for Veteran Student Success Program Pre-Application  Technical Assistance Webinar**

**Date:** Tuesday,  May 17, 2022**Time:**  2 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time)

Join on  your computer or mobile appClick here to  join the meeting

Or call  in (audio only)+1 202-991-0393,,472830992# United States, Washington DC 

Phone  Conference ID: 472 830 992#  Find a local  number | Reset PINLearn More | Meeting options

## Application Contact

Kelly Harris, (202) 453-7346 Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success U.S. Department of Education, OPE400 Maryland Avenue, S.W, LBJ, 2nd Floor -  268-30Washington, DC 20202

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

FIPSE Home
Top of Form

# Preschool Development Grants

## Development Grants

# Panel Review by Applicant

## Montana

Bottom of Form

# _1479586041.unknown