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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 7 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 7

Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on March 13, 
                                 2020.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

 Mr. Gosar (for himself, Mr. Massie, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Weber of Texas, 
 Mr. Perry, Mr. Mast, Mr. Buck, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Nehls, Ms. Tenney, Mr. 
 Steube, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Tiffany, Mrs. Greene of Georgia, Mr. Lamborn, 
   Mr. Norman, Mrs. Boebert, Mr. Burchett, Mr. Allen, Ms. Foxx, Mr. 
 LaMalfa, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Roy, Mr. Jackson of Texas, Mr. 
    Biggs, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Bishop of North Carolina, Mr. Babin, Ms. 
Hageman, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Rosendale, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Issa, Mr. 
  Calvert, and Mr. Smith of New Jersey) submitted the following joint 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on March 13, 
                                 2020.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, pursuant to section 202 
of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national 
emergency declared by the finding of the President on March 13, 2020, 
in Proclamation 9994 (85 Fed. Reg. 15337) is hereby terminated.
                                 <all>
```
FILED 

FEB 1 0 2016 

CLERK 

, C.J. 

Parraguirre 

, J. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

FRANK MILFORD PECK, No. 69339 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

WASHOE; AND K. JONES, DEPUTY 

CLERK, 

Respondents, 

and 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Real Party in Interest. 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This is a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner 

complains that the district court's filing of his documents was untimely. 

We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and without 

deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to 

exercise original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

ss iriel*/ 

Douglas 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

cc: Frank Milford Peck 

Attorney GeneraliCarson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

(0) [947A cep
Exhibit 10.1


 


 







 


_________________


 


June 1, 2017


 


Ms. Georgia L. Vlamis


700 Spruce Street


Glenview, IL 60025


 


Dear Georgia,


 


I am pleased to confirm that the Board of Directors has approved my recommendation for
you to assume corporate responsibility for Human Resources in addition to your role as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary.
The additional responsibilities will include, but not be limited to, interface with the Compensation Committee, employment and
labor relations, management of the company’s compensation and benefit programs, corporate training and development initiatives,
executive recruitment, payroll administration and dotted line oversight of the plant Human Resource Managers/Director. This change
will be effective June 1, 2017, and as you know, you will continue to report to me.




As part of assuming these expanded responsibilities your title will change to Vice President, General Counsel, Corporate Secretary
and Human Resources. Effective on June 5, 2017, your base salary will increase from $255,000 to $267,750. Your Annual Incentive
Target and Long Term Incentive Target will remain at 40%. Finally, we will increase your Termination Without Cause period from
thirteen (13) to twenty-six (26) weeks.


 


All other provisions incorporated in your original offer letter dated November 17, 2015
still apply. This includes your participation in all Company benefit plans, as outlined in JAC’s Salaried Employee Guide,
as amended.


 


Employment with the Company is for no specific period. Your employment with the Company
will be “at will,” meaning that either you or the Company may terminate your employment at any time and for any reason,
with or without cause. Although your job duties, title, compensation and benefits, as well as the Company’s personnel policies
and procedures, have changed, the “at will” nature of your employment may only be changed in an express written agreement
signed by you, the and the Company’s President/CEO.


 


Georgia, I look forward to continuing to work with you, and we appreciate your ongoing
contributions to the business.


 





	Sincerely,	 	Accepted By:
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Joseph E. McNeely	 	/s/ Georgia L. Vlamis
	Joseph E. McNeely	 	Georgia L. Vlamis
	President & CEO	 	 



 










 


 


 


 





Two
North Riverside Plaza


Suite
1300


Chicago, IL 60606 USA


 


312.928.0850


Fax 312.928.0890


www.freightcaramerica.com
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60150

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BOBBY EARL KEYS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(USDC No. 3:95-CV-38-S)

- - - - - - - - - -

September 19, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Bobby Earl Keys, prisoner # 03344-043, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Keys asserts as

grounds for relief the limitation of defense counsel’s summation,

the Government’s cross-examination of his alibi defense, the

violation of his speedy-trial rights, the suggestiveness of the

pretrial identification procedure, the admission of “mugshots,” the

admission of false testimony, and the denial of his right to
2

counsel during the Government’s pretrial investigation.

Keys may not obtain relief under § 2255 on his summation and

post-arrest-silence issues because he raised these issues on direct

appeal. United States v. Kalish, 780 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1118 (1986). Keys has not shown prejudice

resulting from the continuance of the trial date. United States

v. Garcia, 995 F.2d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 1993). Keys’s conclusional

allegations regarding the pretrial and in-court identification

procedures are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue, and he

has failed to show that the procedures were “impermissibly

suggestive” or led to a “substantial likelihood of

misidentification.” Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir.

1990); Herrera v. Collins, 904 F.2d 944, 946 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 498 U.S. 925 (1990). 

Keys failed to demonstrate that the admission of “mugshots”

influenced the jury’s verdict. United States v. Torres-Flores, 827

F.2d 1031, 1035-39 (5th Cir. 1987). Keys failed to demonstrate

that Agent Lorrain’s testimony was false and that the Government

knew of the falsity. Blackmon v. Scott, 22 F.3d 560, 565 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 671 (1994). A defendant has no

right to counsel at “photographic displays conducted by the

Government for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an

identification.” United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300, 321 (1973).

Keys abandoned his argument that witness Ivy presented perjured
1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 

3

testimony as well as his Brady,

1 and Jenck’s Act claims. Evans v.

City of Marlin, Tex., 986 F.2d 104, 106 n.1 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Keys’s motions for permission to supplement the record with

additional evidence and for the appointment of an expert at

government expense are DENIED.

Keys has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief

under § 2255. Accordingly, the decision of the district court

denying § 2255 relief and dismissing his motion is AFFIRMED.
#### Martin Rosen and Morris Gertler, appellants, v. Russell Clark et al., appellees.

Gen. No. 34,713.

Opinion filed May 13, 1931.

Ralph R. Obenehain, for appellants.

Goodrich, Vincent & Bradley and Warren Nichols, for appellees.

Mr. Presiding Justice Wilson

delivered the' opinion of the court.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1026 

To permit each of the territories of the United States to provide and furnish 

statues honoring their citizens for placement in Statuary Hall in the 

same manner as statues honoring citizens of the States are provided 

for placement in Statuary Hall. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2023 

Ms. PLASKETT (for herself and Mr. SABLAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To permit each of the territories of the United States to 

provide and furnish statues honoring their citizens for 

placement in Statuary Hall in the same manner as statues honoring citizens of the States are provided for placement in Statuary Hall. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PLACEMENT OF STATUES OF CITIZENS OF TER4 RITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN STAT5 UARY HALL. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1814 of the Revised Stat7 utes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 2131) is amended by 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1026 IH

1 adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘For pur2 poses of this section, the term ‘State’ includes American 

3 Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mar4 iana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 

5 United States Virgin Islands, and the term ‘citizen’ in6 cludes a national of the United States, as defined in sec7 tion 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

8 (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT RELATING TO PRO10 CEDURES FOR REPLACEMENT OF STATUES.—Section 311 

11 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001 (2 

12 U.S.C. 2132) is amended by adding at the end the fol13 lowing new subsection: 

14 ‘‘(f) For purposes of this section, the term ‘State’ in15 cludes American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the 

16 Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

17 Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
0 

1 

, 

I 
Zion. Claude A. Ef;llW$s, page 2 

Is5 will mt atte;r,pt t* qwte or dlsours all phases 

phi OtitliId ifi tfI@ WtribitS QttaCh0d t0 J%W l??ttW, 

- _ ._ 

'?i'o have coriaidercd the Texas l3~euploynsnt C?ompenasatlon law RO emoted by the 3rd Gallad Se:;sios of the (Gr,th) 

Legislature elld since amndod for the Ictwtion of the le&sl&tion in the furthertmoo oi a fibto unrxzp,lo~ont inauranoe 

PI&n. Sect;ion li (I) of the GT3.&$ar?.l 4xlact,7Grr’c aiia krtlcle 

&%ib4(1) oaatalns this adzorrition: 


Hon. Glaude A. Viilll~s, page 5 

limitations placed in Article'522lb can be re1s.d or chsngedonly by the Legiislaturc of Texas. Section 1 of Article 5221b, 

supra, provides statu<ory ?eSulations of amounts payable, the 

duration of payment aud hour becefits shall be paid. It fixes 

a naximm and a minimum that t?ay be paid fror. the Texas benefit 

account. 

Article 6221b, Section 3 (e), provides that an 

Individual shall be disqualified for benefits if he is recoiving or has received rewncration on: 

"(1) %ges in lieu of ,noticel 

"(2) Compensation for temporary partial disability, temporary total disability or total and 

pernauent disabil.ity under the 'r~orkmnqs Conpensatlon law of any State or under a similar law of 

the United States; 

,' 

"(3) Old Age Benefits imder Title. II of the 

Social SecurityAct as mendsd, or similar payrmnts 

under any hot of Congress, or a St&a Legislature,. 

or en;ployer pension'plan, provided, that if such 

remmeration is less than the benefits which would 

otherviise be due under this Act, he shall be e&titled 

to receive for'such benefit period, if'otherruisa 

eligible, benefit~~reduceB by tha amount of such 

re.mneration.* ., 

This lbitation discloses that the Legislature did 

not intend that benefits be paid if the applicent was receiving 

or had reoeived remxiaration from SOW other named source durlng his unemployment. The statute eliminates wages in lieu 

of notice, all dfsnbility insurance, employer pension plan, 

old age benefits or similar payments under any Act of Congress. 

Xe believe that s;ai‘or ~Displncei~ nt Grant is within'the prohibition 

of Section 3 (e)(3), and that payment of benefits under 

Article 5221b would be limited by the terms.of (e)(3). 

The Legislature of this State through the Texas Unemployment Compensation Conx~ission has no povjer to limit the 

amount of ?isr Displacement benefits in this stats, but,it rruet 

distribute the benefits payable under the Texss Unem~!loymont 

Act as provided in,our lnwl 
”
#### John G. Hellman Co., Inc., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v County of Nassau, Appellant-Respondent.

— Order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 15, 1977, affirmed, without costs or disbursments, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Di Paola at Special Term. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, O’Connor and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           USDA Awards $200 Million for Skills Training to Help SNAP Recipients Get Jobs      

# USDA Awards $200 Million for Skills Training to Help SNAP Recipients Get Jobs

USDA has awarded $200 million to fund and evaluate pilot projects in 10 states to help Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP) participants find jobs and work toward self-sufficiency. The selected pilots will focus on target populations and represent a wide array of balanced approaches, including skills training, work-based learning, support services, and other job-driven strategies. 

http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAOC/bulletins/f96f72?reqfrom=share&utm_source=FindYouthInfo.gov&utm_medium=Federal-Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
#### 945.671 Contractor inventory in foreign countries.

Contractor inventory located in foreign countries will be utilized and disposed of in accordance with 41 CFR 109-43.5 and 45.41, or its successor and 48 CFR 45.302.
##### 



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
of CNA Financial Corporation
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of CNA Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge:  
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 filed
on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: May 10, 2005 /s/ Stephen W. LilienthalStephen W. LilienthalChief Executive Officer The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. 100
#### 9904.410-61 Interpretation. [Reserved]
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   6-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1998
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-1998
[CASH]                                           1,912
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                   20,384
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                     22,333
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                54,711
[PP&E]                                          13,098
[DEPRECIATION]                                       0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                  89,918
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                           19,542
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                           321
[OTHER-SE]                                           0
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                    89,918
[SALES]                                         42,621
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                     0
[CGS]                                           22,219
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                   25,680
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                 836
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                (6,114)
[INCOME-TAX]                                   (1,316)
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                                  0
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                   (4,798)
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                    (.15)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                    (.15)
</TABLE>
#### Louis Steinberg, Appellant, v. Eugene Goldstein et al, Respondents.

—In an action to recover damages for assault, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Bangs County, dated October 31, 1966, as dismissed and severed the causes of action against defendant Lorraine Goldstein in his amended complaint and denied his cross motion insofar as it was for authorization for the interposition of said amended complaint as to said defendant. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. Lorraine Goldstein. The amended complaint alleges (taking the first two causes together) that plaintiff and defendant Eugene Goldstein had an argument at 10:05 p.m. on September 15, 1965, near defendants’ residence. Goldstein’s wife, defendant Lorraine Goldstein, was present. Plaintiff walked away and Mr. Goldstein followed and threatened to harm him, but then went back home. About 25 minutes later, while plaintiff was walking his dog about four blocks from defendants’ residence, defendants drove up to where plaintiff was; Mr. Goldstein got out of the ear and commenced to speak to plaintiff; Mrs. Goldstein then drove the motor vehicle to follow plaintiff and Mr. Gold-stein as plaintiff continued to walk, with Mr. Goldstein following him. While they were so walking, Mr. Goldstein assaulted plaintiff. After the alleged assault Mr. Goldstein drove the motor vehicle away. It is further alleged that Mrs. Goldstein knew that her husband had a violent temper and vicious tendencies ; that her “ aforesaid acts * * * were done with intent to encourage, aid and abet * * * [Mr. Goldstein] in the aforesaid assault upon the plaintiff ”; and that her “ aforesaid conduct * * * did in fact encourage, aid and abet * * * [Mr. Goldstein] in the aforesaid assault upon the plaintiff.” In the third cause of action it is also alleged that Mrs. Goldstein, “in the performance of the aforesaid acts by her, acted in concert with the defendant, Eugene Goldstein, in furtherance of a common design with said defendant, to assault the plaintiff.” There is no allegation that Mrs. Gold-stein knew that an assault was planned or was to take place. There is no alie*956gation that Mr. Goldstein went out with the intent and purpose of searching for plaintiff to assault him. Absent such allegations there can be no inference that Mrs. Goldstein knew of any such intention; and, consequently, she may not be charged with aiding or abetting Mr. Goldstein or acting in concert with him. Her conduct was not such- as could be inferred to have been in aid of an assault, where there is no allegation not only that she went to search out plaintiff and assault him but that Mr. Goldstein went to search out and assault plaintiff. More is required than mere conjecture; and to hold Mrs. Goldstein we must impose conjecture upon conjecture. This we may not do. The fact that she drove the ear the few minutes before the assault cannot be used as an inference of complicity in the assault. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur. [51 Misc 2d 825.]
§ 1.317 Disqualification of reviewing official or ALJ. ( a ) A reviewing official or ALJ in a particular case may disqualify himself or herself at any time.
( b ) A party may file with the ALJ a motion for disqualification of a reviewing official or an ALJ. Such motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit alleging personal bias or other reason for disqualification.
( c ) Such motion and affidavit shall be filed promptly upon the party's discovery of reasons requiring disqualification, or such objections shall be deemed waived.
( d ) Such affidavit shall state specific facts that support the party's belief that personal bias or other reason for disqualification exists and the time and circumstances of the party's discovery of such facts. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of the representative of record that it is made in good faith.
( e ) Upon the filing of such a motion and affidavit, the ALJ shall proceed no further in the case until he or she resolves the matter of disqualification in accordance with paragraph (f).
( f ) ( 1 ) If the ALJ determines that a reviewing official is disqualified, the ALJ shall dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
( 2 ) If the ALJ disqualifies himself or herself, the case shall be reassigned promptly to another ALJ.
( 3 ) If the ALJ denies a motion to disqualify, the authority head may determine the matter only as part of his or her review of the initial decision upon appeal, if any.