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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2436 

To prepare a feasibility study and implement demonstration projects to restore 

the San Gabriel River Watershed in California. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2013 

Ms. CHU (for herself, Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Ms. ROYBALALLARD, and Ms. HAHN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To prepare a feasibility study and implement demonstration 

projects to restore the San Gabriel River Watershed in 

California. 

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 ‘‘San Gabriel Watershed 

5 Restoration Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2436 IH

1 SEC. 2. SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, 

2 CALIFORNIA. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Chief of the Army Corps of 

4 Engineers, in coordination with the County of Los Ange5 les, shall— 

6 (1) prepare a feasibility study for environmental 

7 ecosystem restoration, flood control, water quality 

8 control, water supply storage, outdoor recreation en9 hancements, and other aspects of the San Gabriel 

10 River Watershed revitalization that is consistent 

11 with the goals of the San Gabriel River master plan 

12 published by the County of Los Angeles; and 

13 (2) identify demonstration projects for con14 struction and restoration of the San Gabriel River 

15 Watershed. 

16 (b) DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.— 

17 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Chief of the Army 

18 Corps of Engineers is authorized to construct dem19 onstration projects in order to provide information 

20 to develop the study under subsection (a)(1). 

21 (2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of 

22 the cost of any project under this subsection shall be 

23 not more than 65 percent. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2436 IH

1 (3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

2 There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

3 this subsection $50,000,000. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 3406
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3406 appear at 76 FR 4809, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3406.25 Use of funds; changes. ( a ) *Delegation of fiscal responsibility.* The grantee may not in whole or in part delegate or transfer to another person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of grant funds.
( b ) *Change in project plans.* ( 1 ) The permissible changes by the grantee, principal investigator(s)/project director(s), or other key project personnel in the approved project grant shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee or the principal investigator(s)/project director(s) are uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the question must be referred to the Department for a final determination.
( 2 ) Changes in approved goals, or objectives, shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the authorized departmental officer prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the approved project.
( 3 ) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the authorized departmental officer prior to effecting such changes.
( 4 ) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the authorized departmental officer prior to effecting such transfers.
( c ) *Changes in project period.* The project period may be extended by the authorized departmental officer without additional financial support for such additional period(s) as the authorized departmental officer determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes of an approved project. However, due to statutory restriction, no grant may be extended beyond five years from the original start date of the grant. Grant extensions shall be conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing by the authorized departmental officer, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of a grant.
( d ) *Changes in approved budget.* Changes in an approved budget must be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the authorized departmental officer prior to instituting such changes if the revision will: ( 1 ) Involve transfers of amounts budgeted for indirect costs to absorb an increase in direct costs;
( 2 ) Involve transfers of amounts budgeted for direct costs to accommodate changes in indirect cost rates negotiated during a budget period and not approved when a grant was awarded; or
( 3 ) Involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior approval as set forth in the applicable Federal cost principles, Departmental regulations, or in the grant award.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 23

- 0 301

_____________________________
S YLVESTER O’N EIL L EE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Dustin Stephenson , Judge

. January 26, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , C.J., and L EWIS and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Sylvester O’Neil Lee, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### § 29.2283 Nested.

Any tobacco which has been loaded, packed, or arranged to conceal foreign matter or tobacco of inferior grade, quality, or condition. (See Rule 22, § 29.2413.)
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1993 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1993

 To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from hiring new employees to 
enforce the Federal Government's invasion into the health care lives of 
                           American citizens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2013

  Mr. Forbes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from hiring new employees to 
enforce the Federal Government's invasion into the health care lives of 
                           American citizens.

    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 ``Prevent IRS Overreach Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IRS FROM HIRING NEW EMPLOYEES TO ENFORCE PATIENT 
              PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND HEALTH CARE AND 
              EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.

    No position within the Internal Revenue Service may be filled, by 
transfer or any other appointment taking effect on or after the date of 
enactment of this Act, if the duties and responsibilities of such 
position include the enforcement of any provision of, or amendment made 
by, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care 
and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5                       
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         116,334
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  162,439
<ALLOWANCES>                                   6,500
<INVENTORY>                                    339,552
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               731,218
<PP&E>                                         866,411
<DEPRECIATION>                                 488,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,288,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          373,020
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9,368
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,517,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,288,937
<SALES>                                        1,602,830
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,602,830
<CGS>                                          497,260
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  950,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             35,655
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                119,902
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (93,750)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   213,652
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .024
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .024
        


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

Ju ly 14 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk Ju ly 14 , 2017

15 5 42 8

- 9 ( 7 4 )

KATIE BARKER

, Personal Representative

of the Estate of PERRY PACE,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 155428

v COA: 328584

Genesee CC : 13

- 100524

- NH

HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER, DR. JOHN DOE,

DENIKA LLOYD, NURSE 1 JANE DOE,

NURSE 2 JANE DOE, and NURSE 3 JANE DOE,

Defendants,

and

DR. PATRICK HAWLEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

___________________________________________

K ATIE BARKER

, Personal Representative

of the Estate of PERRY PACE,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 155429

v COA: 328997

C t of Claims : 13

- 000072

- MH

THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, d /b/a

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH

CENTER, d /b/ a UNIVER SITY OF MICHIGAN

HOSPITAL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

___________________________________________ /

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of defendant

- appellant to extend the time

for filing its reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted

on or before August 8 , 2017.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DRECO BROWN,

Inmate No. 12166-003,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv4490/LAC/EMT

M. NICHOLS,

Defendant.

______________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on August 

12, 2020 (ECF No. 8). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and 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 have determined it 

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) 

is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-04490-LC-EMT Document 9 Filed 09/22/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cv4490/LAC/EMT

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 2020.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-04490-LC-EMT Document 9 Filed 09/22/20 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:03-CR-36-SPM

JERDY DEMOND MILLER,

Defendant.

______________________________/

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

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Reduce

Sentence (doc. 43) pursuant to the retroactive crack cocaine amendment

(Amendments 706 and 711) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The Government filed a

response in opposition (doc. 44).

An application of the amendment results in no change to Defendant’s

guideline range because of the career offender enhancement, which sets

Defendant’s offense level at 37. With a 3-point reduction for acceptance of

responsibility, Defendant’s total offense level remains at level 34, and his

guideline range and mandatory minimum sentence remains life imprisonment as

originally calculated. Defendant’s initial imprisonment was guided by the

statutory mandatory minimum instead of the Sentencing Guidelines. As a result,

Defendant’s sentence is not affected by the crack cocaine amendment.

Case 4:03-cr-00036-SPM Document 45 Filed 05/01/08 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.: 5:99cr28-SPM 2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Reduce

Sentence (doc. 43) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this first day of May, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00036-SPM Document 45 Filed 05/01/08 Page 2 of 2
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsApplication of Interface Technology in Nonlinear Analysis of a Stitched/RFI Composite Wing Stub BoxA recently developed interface technology was successfully employed in the geometrically nonlinear analysis of a full-scale stitched/RFI composite wing box loaded in bending. The technology allows mismatched finite element models to be joined in a variationally consistent manner and reduces the modeling complexity by eliminating transition meshing. In the analysis, local finite element models of nonlinearly deformed wide bays of the wing box are refined without the need for transition meshing to the surrounding coarse mesh. The COMET-AR finite element code, which has the interface technology capability, was used to perform the analyses. The COMET-AR analysis is compared to both a NASTRAN analysis and to experimental data. The interface technology solution is shown to be in good agreement with both. The viability of interface technology for coupled global/local analysis of large scale aircraft structures is demonstrated.Document ID19970019491Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsWang, John T.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Ransom, Jonathan B.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1997Publication InformationPublisher: American inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsSubject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-112837NAS 1.15:112837AIAA Paper 97-1190Meeting InformationMeeting: Structures, Structural Dynamics, and MaterialsCountry: United StatesStart Date: April 7, 1997End Date: April 11, 1997Sponsors:American Helicopter Society, Inc.,American Society for Composites,American Society of Mechanical Engineers,American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics,American Society of Civil EngineersAccession Number97N21204Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970019491.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
###### Editorial Note on Subpart E of Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part appear at 87 FR 80005, Dec. 29, 2022.

#### § 301.45-10 Movement of live gypsy moths.

Regulations requiring a permit for, and otherwise governing the movement of, live gypsy moths in interstate or foreign commerce are contained in the Federal Plant Pest Regulations in part 330 of this chapter.
#### § 201.7a Treated seed.

The complete record for any lot consisting of or containing treated seed shall include records necessary to disclose the name of any substance or substances used in the treatment of such seed, including a label or invoice or other document received from any person establishing the name of any substance or substances used in the treatment to be as stated, and a representative sample of the treated seed.

[32 FR 12778, Sept. 6, 1967]
### Th e Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judg e 1 

### for the District of Minnesota.



# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1157

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Jamal Suliman Muhtaseb, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 5, 1997 Filed: May 9, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jamal Muhtaseb pleaded guilty to fai ling to surrender for service of his sentence, in viol ation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(2). At sentencing, the district court denied Muhtaseb's motion for a downward departure unde r 1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.0 (1995), and sentenced Muhtaseb to 21 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. Muhtase b app eals, arguing that the district court erred by denying the departur e motion. We affirm. A court may depart from the applicable Guidelines range "if the court fin ds 'that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into

### -2-

considerationby the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described.'" U.S . Sentenc ing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.0, p.s. (1995) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 355 3(b)). If a district court's refusal to depart was an exercise o f discretion, we cannot review the ruling; if, however, the district court concluded it lacked the authority to depart, we may review the ruling. Se e United States v. Jenkins , 78 F.3d 1283, 1290 (8th Cir. 1996); United State s v. Bieri , 21 F.3d 811 , 817 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 878 (1994). Upon our review of th e record, we conclude the district court was clearly aw are of its authority to depart. Thus, its refusal to do so was a n unreviewable exercise of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# CI2021058EN.01000201.xml

| 18.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 58/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 58/2

---

Joint Declaration by the European Parliament and the Commission on data collection for effective controls and audits

(2021/C 58 I/02)

The European Parliament and the Commission recall the need to ensure effective controls and audits for the purposes of avoiding double funding and preventing, detecting and correcting fraud, corruption and conflict of interests in relation to the measures supported by the Recovery and Resilience Facility. The two institutions consider essential that Member States collect and record data on final recipients and beneficiaries of Union funding in an electronic standardised and interoperable format and use the single data mining tool to be provided by the Commission.

---
#### § 29.3018 Dark red color (D).

A dark reddish brown.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
#### The State ex rel. Montgomery, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee, et al.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Montgomery v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 436.]

(No. 97-2637

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 28, 1998.)

*Shapiro, Kendis & Associates Co., L.P.A.,*and *Rachel B. Jaffy,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Jonathan A. Good,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas and Resnick, JJ., separately dissent.

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and return the cause to the Industrial Commission pursuant to *State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm.*(1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245.