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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2383 

To designate the new Interstate Route 70 bridge over the Mississippi River 

connecting St. Louis, Missouri, and southwestern Illinois as the ‘‘Stan 

Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2013 

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois (for himself, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. 

ENYART, Mrs. WAGNER, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mrs. 

HARTZLER, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. LONG, Mr. SMITH of Missouri, 

Mr. HULTGREN, and Mr. ROSKAM) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the new Interstate Route 70 bridge over the 

Mississippi River connecting St. Louis, Missouri, and 

southwestern Illinois as the ‘‘Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STAN MUSIAL VETERANS MEMORIAL BRIDGE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The new Interstate Route 70 

5 bridge over the Mississippi River that connects St. Louis, 

6 Missouri, to southwestern Illinois shall be known and des7 ignated as the ‘‘Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2383 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the bridge referred to in subsection (a) shall be 

4 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Stan Musial Veterans 

5 Memorial Bridge’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:02cr29-MP-GRJ

RAYMOND REED, JR.

 /

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated March 8, 2012. (Doc. 214). The parties have been furnished a

copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 205) is

DENIED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules

Governing Section 2255 Cases.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cr-00029-MP-GRJ Document 215 Filed 05/02/12 Page 1 of 1
#### § 28.46 Method of submitting samples and types.

The method of submitting samples and types for comparison shall be the same as that prescribed in this subpart for submitting samples for classification.
§ 29.66 Certificates. ( a ) *Forms.* Each certificate issued under this regulation shall ( 1 ) show that it was issued under The Tobacco Inspection Act;
( 2 ) be in a form approved for the purpose by the Director and
( 3 ) embody within its written or printed terms, with respect to the particular kind of service, all applicable information required by paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this section. Each certificate may also contain any information, not inconsistent with the act and the regulations in this subpart, as may be approved or required by the Director. The Director may, in his discretion, specify or limit the period in which a certificate shall be valid.
( b ) *Inspection certificate.* Each inspection certificate shall show ( 1 ) the caption “Tobacco Inspection Certificate”;
( 2 ) whether it is an original, first, second, or other copy;
( 3 ) the number of the certificate;
( 4 ) the identification number and private identification marks on the lot;
( 5 ) the date and number of the official sample, if any;
( 6 ) the location of the tobacco at the time of inspection or sampling;
( 7 ) the date of inspection;
( 8 ) the type and grade of the tobacco;
( 9 ) the kind of lot or package; and
( 10 ) the signature of the official inspector; also such additional information as may be required by the Director. An inspection certificate covering a package of tobacco shall also show the form and condition of the tobacco.
( c ) *Sample inspection certificate.* Each sample inspection certificate shall carry the caption “Tobacco Sample Inspection Certificate” and shall otherwise comply with the requirements of an inspection certificate, and in addition include a clearly worded statement that the type, grade, or other tobacco characteristics, shown therein, apply only to the tobacco contained in the sample inspected.
( d ) *Weight certificate.* Each weight certificate shall show ( 1 ) the caption “Tobacco Weight Certificate”;
( 2 ) whether it is an original, first, second, or other copy;
( 3 ) the number of the certificate;
( 4 ) the identification number or private identification marks on the lot;
( 5 ) the location of the tobacco at the time of weighing;
( 6 ) the date of weighing;
( 7 ) the weight of each lot;
( 8 ) the kind of lot or package; and
( 9 ) the signature of the official weigher.
( e ) *Official sample tag.* Each official sample drawn and prepared shall have attached thereto, a certificate or tag showing ( 1 ) the caption “Official Tobacco Sample”;
( 2 ) the date of sampling;
( 3 ) the location of the tobacco at the time of sampling;
( 4 ) the kind of lot or package;
( 5 ) the condition of the tobacco;
( 6 ) the identification number and private identification marks on the lot; and
( 7 ) when a lot is found to be damaged, nested, or in doubtful keeping order, a statement of such fact.
( f ) *Combination certificate.* A combination certificate of inspection and weight may be issued under the Act, if such certificate carries the caption “Tobacco Inspection and Weight Certificate” and otherwise meets all of the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section.
#### Lester Lazarus, as Assignee for the Benefit of Creditors of Ranger Bakers, Inc., Respondent, v Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 30, 1978, which, *inter alia,*denied its motion for leave to amend its answer and for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by adding to the first decretal paragraph thereof, immediately after the words "denied in all respects”, the following: "except that defendant is granted partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s second cause of action, sounding in breach of contract.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages for goods sold and delivered and for breach of contract. On the instant record, there are sufficient circumstances to raise triable issues as to whether the defendant should be estopped from challenging the validity of plaintiff’s letter of December 5, 1975, as constituting a viable notice of claim in compliance with section 3813 of the Education Law (cf. *Bender v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*38 NY2d 662). Although the amount demanded is not expressly stated, there is no question that the defendant had full notice of the nature of the claim as well as an *663ample opportunity to investigate it (cf. *Salesian Soc. v Village of Ellenville,*41 NY2d 521). Similarly, factual issues are presented concerning the applicability of the one-year contractual period of limitation and, if applicable, whether defendant is estopped from relying on such defense. However, these issues are pertinent only to the *ñrst*cause of action seeking payment for goods sold and delivered. The letter of December 5, 1975 may not be construed as constituting a notice of claim for the breach of contract action and no other or different timely notice is claimed to have been filed. The timely filing of a notice of claim is a condition precedent and the failure to do so requires dismissal, even if not pleaded (cf. *Flanagan v Board of Educ.,*47 NY2d 613). Furthermore, there is no doubt that the breach of contract action accrued no later than in December, 1975 and that the action was therefore not timely commenced within the contractual period of limitation. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to partial summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, O’Connor and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### § 28.521 Application of color and leaf grade standards.

American Pima cotton which in color is within the range of the color standards established in this part shall be designated according to the color standard irrespective of the leaf content. American Pima cotton which in leaf is within the range of the leaf standards established in this part shall be designated according to the leaf standard irrespective of the color content.

[65 FR 36601, June 9, 2000]
Exhibit
    23.2
            Consent of
      Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm









We have
issued our reports dated March 7, 2007, accompanying the consolidated financial
statements and schedules (which
reports expressed an unqualified opinion and contain an explanatory paragraph
relating to the adoption ofStatement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 123R,Share-Based
Payment,effective January 1, 2006)included in the Annual Report of Theragenics Corporationon
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of
Theragenics Corporation on Form S-8, file numbers 33-40737, 333-15313,
333-40653, 333-64801, 333-48136 and 333-136640, and on Forms S-3 333-127551 and
333-143839.







/s/ GRANT
THORNTON LLP





Atlanta,
Georgia


March 12,
2008
#### Robert Gordon et al., Appellants, v Metropolitan Life Insurance *812Company, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Since formal notice that the court intended to treat the motions to dismiss the complaints (CPLR 3211, subd [a], par 7) as motions for summary judgment was not given to the appellants (CPLR 3211, subd [c]), Special Term erred insofar as it purported to treat the motions as ones seeking summary judgment. The complaints do not, however, state legally cognizable causes of action and Special Term properly granted judgments dismissing the complaints. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida Supreme Court — dismiss complaint.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
Page 1 of 2

1

See Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d 1083 (11TH Cir. 1997) (district courts must treat notices of

appeal in Section 2255 actions as applications for certificates of appealability).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:96cr76/RV

LEONARD THOMAS WALKER

ORDER

The defendant has filed a notice of appeal (doc. 146) which this court construes as

a request for a certificate of appealability.1 Defendant appeals the court’s denial of his

Rule 60(b) motion. (Doc. 141). Unless a certificate of appealability is issued, the defendant

may not take an appeal from the final order denying a Rule 60(b) motion. Gonzalez v.

Secretary of Department of Corrections, 317 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th Cir. 2003). A certificate

of appealability should not issue in the appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in a

habeas case unless the petitioner/defendant shows, at a minimum, that it is debatable

among jurists of reason whether the district court abused its discretion, see Mobley v.

Head, 306 F.3d 1096, 1097 (11th Cir. 2002) (“This Court reviews a denial of a 60(b) motion

for an abuse of discretion.”). Because the court finds the defendant has not made the

requisite showing for the reasons stated in the court’s order denying the motion (doc. 141),

his request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Defendant has not filed a motion

Case 3:96-cr-00076-RV-MD Document 148 Filed 10/10/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 3:96cr57/RV; 3:03cv2/RV/MD

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court finds that the appeal is not taken in good

faith and he is not otherwise entitled to so proceed. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3). Therefore,

defendant shall pay the $455.00 filing fee within thirty days.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of October, 2006.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

Roger Vinson

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:96-cr-00076-RV-MD Document 148 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.3112 Rule 9.

Any special factor symbol, approved by the Director of the Tobacco Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service, may be used to show a peculiar side or characteristic of the tobacco which tends to modify the grade.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959, as amended at 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2191 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations with respect 

to ensuring families are able to sit together on flights, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mr. NADLER (for himself, Ms. HAHN, Mr. RANGEL, and Mrs. CAROLYN B. 

MALONEY of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations 

with respect to ensuring families are able to sit together 

on flights, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Families Flying To5 gether Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SEATING FAMILIES TOGETHER ON FLIGHTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of TransporVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:15 May 31, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2191.IH H2191

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2191 IH

1 tation shall issue regulations directing each air carrier 

2 to— 

3 (1) establish a policy to ensure, to the extent 

4 practicable, that a family that purchases tickets for 

5 a flight with that air carrier is seated together dur6 ing that flight; and 

7 (2) make the policy described in paragraph (1) 

8 available to the public on an appropriate Internet 

9 Web site of the air carrier. 

10 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following defi11 nitions apply: 

12 (1) AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘air carrier’’ has 

13 the meaning given that term in section 40102(a) of 

14 title 49, United States Code. 

15 (2) FAMILY.—The term ‘‘family’’ means a 

16 grouping of individuals that includes, at a min17 imum— 

18 (A) a child who is 12 years of age or 

19 younger; and 

20 (B) an individual who is— 

21 (i) 18 years of age or older; and 

22 (ii) responsible for accompanying that 

23 child, including a parent or legal guardian 

24 of that child. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## ENCLOSURE 2:

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO40 CFR § 51 .102 ANDAPPENDIX V OF 40 CFR PART 51CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO40 CFR § 51 .102 ANDAPPENDIX VOF 40CFRPART 51

REGARDING PROPOSED REVISION TOVERMONT'S STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TOADDRESS REGIONAL HAZE Public notice ofthe proposed revision to the Vermont state implementation plan (SIP) to address regional haze was published on January 15, 2009 in the following newspapers : Burlington Free Press, Rutland Herald, Caledonian Record, Times Argus, and Vermont Lawyer . The notice provided the opportunity for interested persons to request a public hearing and comment on the proposed revisions. The notice further stated that if a hearing was requested by February 17, 2009, the hearing would be held on February 23, 2009, at 6

:00pin in Stanley Hall Room100 located onthe grounds of the State Office Complex at 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont. As required by 40 CFR § 51 .102(f), I hereby certify that the requirements of 40 CFR § 51 .102(a)-(d) were met and that no public hearing was requested during the notification period. In accordance with Section 2.1(g) ofAppendix Vof 40 CFRPart 51,1 further certify that the public notice and hearing procedure followed was consistent with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, as applicable .

Richard A . Valentinetti Certifying Officer
#### §§ 25.205-25.299 [Reserved]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:02-CR-32-SPM

JASON LEMARVIN JOHNSON,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s request for a

sentence reduction under the retroactive crack cocaine amendment

(Amendments 706 and 711) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (doc. 125). The

Government has filed a response in opposition (doc. 126).

Upon review, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to a sentence

reduction because application of the guideline amendment results in no change

to her sentencing range. Defendant’s offense involved more than 8 kilograms of

powder cocaine. Defendant’s sentencing calculation did not include any amount

of cocaine base attributed to Defendant. Therefore, because Defendant is not

affected by the crack cocaine amendment, he is not eligible for a sentence

reduction. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s

request for a sentence reduction (doc. 125) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this twelfth day of May, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00032-SPM Document 127 Filed 05/12/08 Page 1 of 1
#### William H. George, Plaintiff, v. Alice Aviles et al., Defendants. Alice Aviles et al., Appellants, v. Helen Stratigos, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 10, 1966, reversed insofar as it is in favor of defendant Helen Stratigos, on the law; and, as against said defendant, action severed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, in view of .the physical points of impact upon the vehicles and the testimony concerning the observations or lack of observations of defendant Helen Stratigos, plaintiffs made out a prima facie case entitling them to have the jury decide the issues of negligence and contributory negligence. Beldock, P. J., TJghetta, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

)

INDEPENDENT PARTY OF )

FLORIDA and PARTY FOR )

SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. 4:20-cv-00110-MW-CAS

)

LAUREL M. LEE, Florida )

Secretary of State, in her official )

capacity, )

)

Defendant. )

)

NOTICE OF FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Please take Notice that the following Declarations are Filed in 

Support of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed on 

April 6, 2020. (DE 9.) These Declarations are filed pursuant to the 

Order dated April 13, 2020. (DE 16.)

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 20 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 3
2

Dated this 23rd day of April, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

THE BERNHOFT LAW FIRM, S.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Daniel J. Treuden

Daniel J. Treuden

Admitted pro hac vice

1402 E. Cesar Chavez Street

Austin, Texas 78702

telephone: (512) 582-2100

facsimile: (512) 373-3159

djtreuden@bernhoftlaw.com

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 20 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The foregoing document was served on the Defendant by the ECF 

system at the time of filing:

ashley.davis@dos.myflorida.com

Deputy General Counsel Ashley E. Davis

brad.mcvay@dos.myflorida.com

General Counsel Brad R. McVay

Attorneys for:

Laurel M. Lee, Florida Secretary of State

R.A. Gray Building, Suite 100

500 S. Bronough Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Signed this 23rd of April, 2020.

 /s/ Daniel J. Treuden

Daniel J. Treuden

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 20 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOHN W. BENNETT,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-81-RV-MJF

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILIES

and

CHRISTINA DRAKE,

Respondents.

_____________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated March 20, 2020. (Doc. 3). The Petitioner was provided 

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and was afforded an opportunity to file 

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections 

have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I conclude that it should 

be adopted.

Case 5:20-cv-00081-RV-MJF Document 4 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 5:20cv81-RV-MJF

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 3) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk is directed to close this case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of April, 2020.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00081-RV-MJF Document 4 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 2