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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2080 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2080

 To provide for the admission to the United States of certain Tibetans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2013

Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the admission to the United States of certain Tibetans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tibetan Refugee Assistance Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. TRANSITION FOR DISPLACED TIBETANS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the numerical limitations 
specified in sections 201 and 202 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 and 1152), there shall be made available to 
qualified displaced Tibetans described in subsection (b) of this 
section 3,000 immigrant visas in the 3-fiscal-year period beginning 
with fiscal year 2014.
    (b) Qualified Displaced Tibetan Described.--
            (1) In general.--An individual is a qualified displaced 
        Tibetan if such individual is an individual who--
                    (A) is a native of Tibet; and
                    (B) since before the date of the enactment of this 
                Act, has been continuously residing in India or Nepal.
            (2) Native of tibet described.--For purposes of 
        subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), an individual shall be 
        considered to be a native of Tibet if such individual was born 
        in Tibet or is the son, daughter, grandson, or granddaughter of 
        an individual born in Tibet.
    (c) Distribution of Visa Numbers.--The Secretary of State shall 
ensure that immigrant visas provided under subsection (a) are made 
available to qualified displaced Tibetans described in subsection (b) 
(or described in subsection (d) as the spouse or child of such a 
qualified displaced Tibetan) in an equitable manner, giving preference 
to those qualified displaced Tibetans who are not resettled in India or 
Nepal or who are most likely to be resettled successfully in the United 
States.
    (d) Derivative Status for Spouses and Children.--A spouse or child 
(as defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 
101(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1))) 
shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the 
immediate issuance of a visa under this section, be entitled to the 
same status, and the same order of consideration, provided under this 
section, if accompanying, or following to join, the spouse or parent of 
such spouse or child.
                                 <all>
```
November 4, 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

From: William H. Maxwell 

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01) 

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 

Subject: Meeting with Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) 

Attendees: 

See attached. 

Discussion: 

A general discussion was held of the issues related to the Navajo Generating Station and the 

proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GABRIEL MARIN, § No. 08-19-00186-CR

Appellant, § Appeal from the

v. § County Criminal Court #4

THE STATE OF TEXAS, § of El Paso County, Texas

Appellee. § (TC# 20180C03247)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021.

JEFF ALLEY, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
#### DUNBAR & SULLIVAN DREDGING CO. v. TITLE GUARANTY & TRUST CO. OF SCRANTON, PA.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

October 10, 1906.)

Action by the Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Company against the Title Guaranty & Trust Company of Scraiiton, Pa.

PER CURIAIvI.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

WILLIAMS, .L, dissents, upon the ground that the examination of a long account, within the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not involved.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court Cause No. DA 20
- 0014
MARK PLAKORUS Appellant,
vs. THE UNIVERSITY OF MONANA Appellee
. **ORDER GR ANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR**  **THIRTY DAY** 

**EXTENSION TO FILE ANSWER BRIE**  **F** On appeal from Judgme nt of the Montana F ourth Judi ci alDistrict Court , Cause No. DV 19
- 434 The Honorable John W. Larson , Pres id ing

**APPEARANCES** Quentin M. Rhoades Kristin Bannigan Rhoades , Siefert & Erickso n, PLLC 430 Ryman St Missoula , MT 59802 Te lephone: (406) 721
- 97 00 qm r@montanalawyer.com kristin@montanalaw yer.com For Plaintiff and Appellant Quinl an L. O ’ Connor P.O. Box 172 8 He le na, MT 59624 Te lephone: (406) 444
- 1 689 qoconnor@mt.gov F or Defendant and Appellee 05/06/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0014Before the Court is T he University of Montana ’ s Uno pposed Motion for

Thirty Day Exten si on to File Answe r Brief. It is HEREBY ORDERED that the University ’ s Motion is GRANTED. The University shall file its Answer Brief on or before June 19, 2020.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court May 6 2020
#### Singleton and True vs. Sodusky.

Assavlt *§£*Battery. Case 115.

Error to the Jessamine circuit; W. L. Kelly, Judge.

*Verdict. Certainty.*

In assault and battery, “We of thejury find against the defendants, A and B, five hundred dollars in damage5, and find C ami D not guilty” warrants a judgi meal against A and B.

May 9.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In an action of assault and battery, brought by Sodusky against Singleton, True and others, the jury sworn to try the issues concluded by the pleadings, returned the following verdict :

> *cl*We, of the jury, find against the defendants, Singleton *and*True, five hundred dollars in damages, and find the other defendants not guilty.”

Judgment was rendered for the damages (assessed by the jury,) in favor of Sodusky against Singleton and True; and they now insist, that the verdict was vague, and not sufficiently certain to sustain the judgment.

The jury did not, *in form, expressly*respond to the issues of guilty or not guilty ; but that.they found Singleton and True guilty is necessarily implied, and is as certain as that they found the other defendants not guilty.

Nor does the verdict say, in so many words, that the damages were found *for the plaintiff,*Sodusky', But, surely, there could be no doubt, even by the most sceptical, that the verdict necessarily imports *342that tbe damages were assessed *for Sodusky*in consequence of the -wrong done *to him*by those found guilty of that wrong.

*Hewitt,*for plaintiffs; *Haggin,*for defendant.

The judge who would not give judgment on such a verdict would scarcely, if ever, And a jury able to write a verdict in language so explicit, technical or exact as to suit the fastidiousness of his judicial taste, or conquer the scepticism of his learned head.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Marine Midland Tinker National Bank, Now Known as Marine Midland Bank, Appellant, v Ataipa Construction Corporation et al., Respondents.

— In an action on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 3, 1979, which denied its motion, pursuant to CPLR 3213, for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff is granted. With respect to the enforceability of the promissory note, executed by the defendant Ataipa Construction Corporation on November 13, 1974, and the prior guarantees, we find that there are no triable issues of fact which can defeat the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Lazer and Margett, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit15**

February 5, 2007

MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc.Meridian, Idaho

We have reviewed, inaccordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States), the unaudited interim financial information of MWI VeterinarySupply, Inc. and subsidiaries for the three-month periods endedDecember 31, 2006 and 2005, as indicated in our report datedJanuary 30, 2007; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed noopinion on that information.

We are aware that ourreport referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006, is incorporated by referencein Registration Statement Nos. 333-127879 and 333-127880 on Form S-8.

We also are awarethat the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared orcertified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountantwithin the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that.
| /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Boise, Idaho                  |   |

 

----
#### Bernard Krinsky, Respondent, v. Norman K. Winston et al., Appellants.

In an action by a partner or joint adventurer against his other partners or joint adventurers and others, *inter alia,*to adjudge that the partnership or venture is entitled to certain land, pursuant to the terms of oral agreements, defendants appeal from an order of the 'Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 17, 1968, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable Statutes of Fraud (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd. 1; § 5-703). Order affirmed, without costs. Seemingly, the oral agreements relied upon come within the statutory provision which rendered an oral agreement void if its performance is not to be completed before the end of a lifetime (Personal Property Law, former § 31, subd. 1; now General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd. 1). However, in our opinion, plaintiff should be afforded a plenary trial to fully explore and develop the extensive and complex real estate dealings of the parties as disclosed in the course of the alleged joint venture. There exists the possibility that proof adduced at a trial may entitle plaintiff to some relief not falling within the interdiction of the statute. In view of the prior intimate relationship between the parties, we do not feel that plaintiff should (be foreclosed at the summary judgment stage *(Wilson*v. *La Van,*22 N Y 2d 131, 135; *Matter of Phalen*v. *Theatrical Protective Union No. 1,*22 N Y 2d 34, 41; *Sanger*v. *French,*157 N. Y. 213; cf. *Mattikow v. Sudarsky,*248 N. Y. 404, 407-408; *Dayvault*v. *Baruch Oil Corp.,*211 F. 2d 335). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
# Bioethics Interest Group

Advances in biomedical research create challenging bioethical dilemmas that are debated within the scientific community and by the public. The Bioethics Interest Group provides a discussion forum, considers different views, and presents research on complex ethical issues. For example: safeguarding confidential information; return of research results; whether persons of limited mental capacity should be involved in research that will not provide direct benefit to them; issues surrounding clinical trial design and implementation; compensation for research participation or injury; research on consent and on assessing research risks and benefits; IRB models and whether IRBs protect research participants. Ethical issues involving research with individual humans and with communities, as well as research with animals, are addressed. The group also discusses research integrity and scientific conduct.

The Bioethics Interest Group meets monthly. Meeting formats include seminars, focused discussion, or a debate. Each meeting features exchange of ideas and information. Participants may form research collaborations and meet colleagues with whom they may discuss specific issues related to their own research. Group participants include intramural and extramural scientists and people from local academic institutions and societies.

## Mailing List

To join the Bioethics Interest Group mailing list, please visit the Bioethics Interest Group Listserv home page, then click the “Subscribe or Unsubscribe” link in the right sidebar.

## Chair

- Marion Danis, M.D. , CC

## Advisor

- David Wasserman, J.D., MA , CC

----

## Scientific Focus Areas

-  Neuroscience
View SIGs in Neuroscience

Learn more about Neuroscience in the IRP

-  Genetics and Genomics
View SIGs in Genetics and Genomics

Learn more about Genetics and Genomics in the IRP

-  Clinical Research
View SIGs in Clinical Research

Learn more about Clinical Research in the IRP

This page was last updated on Thursday, August 12, 2021

## Main navigation

- SIGs by Name
- SIGs by Scientific Focus Area   - Biomedical Engineering and Biophysics
  - Cancer Biology
  - Cell Biology
  - Chemical Biology
  - Chromosome Biology
  - Clinical Research
  - Computational Biology
  - Developmental Biology
  - Epidemiology
  - Genetics and Genomics
  - Health Disparities
  - Immunology
  - Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
  - Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
  - Molecular Pharmacology
  - Neuroscience
  - RNA Biology
  - Social and Behavioral Sciences
  - Stem Cell Biology
  - Structural Biology
  - Systems Biology
  - Virology
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JONES
MEDICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      52,171,684
<SECURITIES>                                   120,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,689,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                   388,109
<INVENTORY>                                 12,752,523
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            80,550,805
<PP&E>                                      29,590,764
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,420,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             177,233,388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,031,359
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,137,419
<OTHER-SE>                                 160,782,303
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               177,233,388
<SALES>                                    100,153,086
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           100,153,086
<CGS>                                       39,825,723
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               39,825,723
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               200,625
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             553,196
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             30,428,738
<INCOME-TAX>                                12,290,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         18,138,738
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                18,138,738
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1467.20 Market-based conservation initiatives. ( a ) *Acceptance and use of contributions.* Section 1241(e) of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 3841(e)), allows the Chief to accept and use contributions of non-Federal funds to support the purposes of the program. These funds shall be available without further appropriation and until expended, to carry out the program.
( b ) *Ecosystem Services Credits for Conservation Improvements.* ( 1 ) USDA recognizes that environmental benefits will be achieved by implementing conservation practices and activities funded through WRP, and that environmental credits may be gained as a result of implementing activities compatible with the purposes of a WRP easement, 30-year contract, or restoration cost-share agreement. NRCS asserts no direct or indirect interest in these credits. However, NRCS retains the authority to ensure that the requirements of the WRPO, contract, and easement deed are met. Where activities required under an environmental credit agreement may affect land covered under a WRP easement, 30-year contract, or restoration cost-share agreement, participants are highly encouraged to request a compatibility assessment from NRCS prior to entering into such agreements.
( 2 ) Section 1222(f)(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, does not allow wetlands restored with Federal funds to be utilized for Food Security Act wetland mitigation purposes.
Office of Adolescent Health | Website: http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/TAG @TeenHealthGov Email: TAGTEAM@hhs.gov 

TAG in Action: Gilda’s Club Seattle

As part of its national call to action, Adolescent Health, Think, Act, GrowSM (TAG), the Office of Adolescent 

Health, in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service has identified a number of successful strategies

for improving adolescent health throughout the country. 

The Goal

Gilda’s Club Seattle works with high schools to provide support and information to teens 

about cancer, and to ensure that no young person has to face cancer alone.

The Game 

Plan

Cancer affects the lives of many adolescents, whether they are diagnosed with cancer 

themselves or one of their friends or family members has cancer. Gilda's Club Seattle 

identified a gap in outreach to teens about cancer—including cancer prevention and 

support when friends or family members have been diagnosed with cancer—and has 

provided targeted outreach and educational information to teens in Washington State 

since 2005. 

The organization notes that "More than 73 percent of teens have been touched by cancer 

yet teens are often an overlooked audience, especially regarding cancer risk factors, 

prevention and dealing with the social and emotional needs brought about by a cancer 

diagnosis."

Gilda's Club Seattle is reaching teens where they are already learning—in their high 

schools. The organization's Cancer Education for Teens (CET) program has been delivered

in-person to more than 36,000 teens in 66 Seattle and Puget Sound area high schools. 

Gilda's Club Seattle also empowers teens to share their thoughts and perspectives through 

its annual "It's Always Something" Teen Writing Contest. This special project provides a 

venue for teens in 9th through 12th grades in Washington State and Alaska to give voice to 

their own experiences with cancer, either their own diagnosis or that of a loved one.

The 

Winning 

Plays

Beginning in 2015, Gilda's Club Seattle began offering an online version of CET that 

provides an e-learning approach to help teens learn about cancer prevention, risk factors, 

and how to support people with cancer. With this online version of the training, which 

includes videos and interactive components, Gilda's Club Seattle empowers high schools to 

provide this important educational opportunity to teens wherever they are. 

Learn 

More 

Gilda’s Club Seattle

http://www.gildasclubseattle.org
#### In the Matter of Lawrence A. Tumposky, an Attorney, Respondent. Oneida County Bar Association, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

June 27, 1969.

*Roger H. Williams*for petitioner.

*Lawrence A. Tumposky,*respondent in person, and *Kernan & Kernan (John Hunt*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York in the Fourth Judicial Department on November 4, 1942. He has practised law in this State since admission.

Charges of unprofessional conduct were made against him and an order of this court authorized the Oneida County Bar Association to conduct an investigation into respondent’s conduct as an attorney. Following hearings at which respondent appeared personally, as well as by counsel, formal charges were filed with this court charging respondent with unprofessional conduct. The principal charges claimed that for a period of three years from May 10, 1965 respondent had obtained bank loans on notes with purported indorsements of certain of his relatives when in fact, these indorsements had been placed thereon by him personally without any authorization and that respondent had commingled clients’ funds. These acts of mis*226conduct resulted in nine judgments totaling $26,253.42 being entered against respondent. The investigation further revealed that respondent’s financial difficulties perhaps resulted in part from certain unfortunate domestic difficulties, which nevertheless are no excuse for unethical conduct.

Prior to the completion of this proceeding, respondent tendered his resignation as a member of the New York State Bar. His resignation during the pendency of this proceeding is tantamount to an admission of the charges. (See *Matter of Ferrigno,*26 A D 2d 284; *Matter of Wells,*15 A D 2d 430.)

The resignation should be accepted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Marsh, Wither and Gabrielli, JJ., concur.

Resignation accepted and order entered striking name from roll of attorneys.