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

Calendar No. 46 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 264 

[Report No. 109–33] 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize certain projects in the State of Hawaii. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2005 

Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

MARCH 10, 2005 

Reported by Mr. DOMENICI, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize certain projects 

in the State of Hawaii. 

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 ‘‘Hawaii Water Re5 sources Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 264 RS

1 SEC. 2. HAWAII RECLAMATION PROJECTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

3 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h 

4 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 1637. HAWAII RECLAMATION PROJECTS. 

6 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary may— 

7 ‘‘(1) in cooperation with the Board of Water 

8 Supply, City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, par9 ticipate in the design, planning, and construction of 

10 a project in Kalaeloa, Hawaii, to desalinate and dis11 tribute seawater for direct potable use within the 

12 service area of the Board; 

13 ‘‘(2) in cooperation with the County of Hawaii 

14 Department of Environmental Management, Hawaii, 

15 participate in the design, planning, and construction 

16 of facilities in Kealakehe, Hawaii, for the treatment 

17 and distribution of recycled water and for environ18 mental purposes within the County; and 

19 ‘‘(3) in cooperation with the County of Maui 

20 Wastewater Reclamation Division, Hawaii, partici21 pate in the design, planning, and construction of, 

22 and acquire land for, facilities in Lahaina, Hawaii, 

23 for the distribution of recycled water from the 

24 Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility for non25 potable uses within the County. 
3 

•S 264 RS

1 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost 

2 of a project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

3 25 percent of the total cost of the project. 

4 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—Funds provided by the Secretary 

5 shall not be used for the operation and maintenance of 

6 a project described in subsection (a). 

7 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

8 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec9 essary to carry out this section.’’. 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec11 tions in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authoriza12 tion and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. prec. 371) 

13 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

14 1636 the following: 

‘‘Sec. 1637. Hawaii reclamation projects.’’. 
Calendar No. 46 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 264 

[Report No. 109–33] 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and 

ize certain projects in the State of Hawaii. Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorMARCH 10, 2005 

Reported without amendment
116 STAT. 1332 PUBLIC LAW 107–220—AUG. 21, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2441:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–174 (Comm. on Energy and Commerce).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 147 (2001): Dec. 4, considered and passed House.

Vol. 148 (2002): Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–220

107th Congress

An Act

To amend the Public Health Service Act to redesignate a facility as the National

Hansen’s Disease Programs Center, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL HANSEN’S DISEASE PROGRAMS CENTER.

(a) REFERENCES IN PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.—Section

320(a)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247e(a)(1))

is amended by striking ‘‘Gillis W. Long Hansen’s Disease Center’’

and inserting ‘‘National Hansen’s Disease Programs Center’’.

(b) PUBLIC LAW 105–78.—References in section 211 of Public

Law 105–78, and in deeds, agreements, or other documents under

such section, to the Gillis W. Long Hansen’s Disease Center shall

be deemed to be references to the National Hansen’s Disease Programs Center.

SEC. 2. OTHER REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Gillis W. Long Hansen’s

Disease Center shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘National

Hansen’s Disease Programs Center’’.

Approved August 21, 2002.

42 USC 247e

note.

42 USC 247e

note.

Aug. 21, 2002

[H.R. 2441]
Michael and Theresa



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 1, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00021

- CV

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

, Appellant

v.

Michael and There sa HAYES

, Appellee s

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CV00284

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

O n February 24 , 2015, t he trial court clerk , Daniel Cedar, filed a notification of late

record stating t he clerk’s record ha d not been filed because appellant failed to pay or make

arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and appellant is not entitled to appeal

without paying the fee. On February 26 , 2015, this court ordered a ppellant to provide written

proof to this court that either (1) the clerk’s fee ha d been paid or arrangements ha d been made to

pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee.

On March 6, 2015, Appellant filed a notice of payment. On March 12 , this Court ordered

Daniel Cedar to file the clerk’s record by April 3, and upon no response, on April 15 ordered

Cedar to file the clerk’s record by April 26. Cedar still has not filed the clerk’s record or

otherwise responded to this Court’s two previo us orders.

It is therefore ORDERED the clerk’s record be filed in this court no later than May 6 , 2015. If

the record is not received by such date, an order will i ssue directing Daniel Cedar to appear and

show cause why he should not be held in contempt for ignoring this Court’s order by failing to

file the record.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of May, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>






<ARTICLE>5
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                          5,645
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                  94,929
<ALLOWANCES>                   40,368
<INVENTORY>                    12,290
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              124,720
<PP&E>                        534,972
<DEPRECIATION>                173,749
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                706,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          93,759
<BONDS>                       541,246
<COMMON>                      222,977
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<OTHER-SE>                   (190,222)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  706,835
<SALES>                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              150,944
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              127,925
<LOSS-PROVISION>               12,398
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             13,104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (2,483)
<INCOME-TAX>                      897
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (1,586)
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                   (1,586)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.03)
        



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11

                      ARAMARK CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 COMPUTATION OF FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)
                      (In thousands, except per share data)

                                                 Three Months Ended
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          December 29,          December 30,
                                              1995                 1994
                                          ------------          ------------
Earnings:
Net Income                                   $24,989               $20,753
Preferred stock dividends                       (249)                 (257)
                                             -------               -------
Earnings applicable to common stock          $24,740               $20,496
                                             =======               =======
Shares:
Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding (1) under the
   ARAMARK Ownership Plan                     44,924                45,723
Impact of potential exercise opportunities     2,702                 3,499
                                             -------               -------
         Total common and common
           equivalent shares                  47,626                49,222
                                             =======               =======

Fully diluted earnings per common share (2)     $.52                  $.42
                                                ====                  ====


(1)    Includes Class B plus Class A Common Shares stated on a Class B Common 
       Share Equivalent Basis.

(2)    Primary and fully diluted earnings per share are approximately the same.
December 5, 2014 

Mr. Michael Bradshaw 

Bowhead Mission Solutions, LLC 

777 North Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 380 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 

Dear Mr. Bradshaw: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 21; §§ 45.23(b); 61.113(a) and (b); 91.7(a); 91.9 (b)(2); 91.103(b); 91.109; 91.119; 

91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a) and (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); and 91.409(a)(2); and 

91.417(a) and (b ) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we 

cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

We entered your September 12, 2014, exemption request on behalf of Bowhead Mission 

Solutions, LLC into the public docket (Docket No. FAA-2014-0916), but we are unable to 

process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider your request any further, you 

must send us the following: 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it 

would benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 
2 

Supplemental Guidance on the Submission of Petitions For Exemption Submitted under 

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

On September 25, 2014 the FAA released Public Guidance for Petitions for Exemption Filed 

under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95), 

available at 

http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/how_to_file_a_petition/. 

The FAA recommends that you review the guidance and, if you would like to submit 

additional information to support your petition, please submit it to your specific docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov. This additional information will assist the FAA in making an 

effective evaluation of the requested relief. 

Additionally, the FAA granted an exemption to Astraeus Aerial on September 25, 2014, 

which you may wish to review. This grant of exemption is available at 

http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/media/Astraeus_Aerial-11062.pdf. 

You may send supplemental information to your docket at any time providing further 

information supporting your request for exemption. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Katrina Holiday 

Acting Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
#### Diane Carabella, Respondent, v Michael Magdy Saad, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 199]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated December 21, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff’s decedent, Mary Farente, was making a left-turn at an intersection in Staten Island when her vehicle collided with the defendant’s vehicle. When the defendant first saw the Farente vehicle, it was stopped in the oncoming left-hand turning lane with its turn signal activated. Three to four seconds before impact, the defendant saw the Párente vehicle begin to make a left-hand turn. Although the defendant applied his brakes, the defendant was not able to avoid the accident.

*619Mary Párente passed away before she could be deposed. Her husband, Joseph Párente, who was in the passenger seat at the time of the accident, stated that he was not looking out for vehicles and did not see the defendant’s vehicle before the accident. The Parentes’ daughter, Diane Carabella, stated in a deposition that Mary Párente told her that she thought that her way was clear and that the defendant must have been speeding because she did not see his vehicle before the accident.

The defendant demonstrated his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that Mary Párente made a left-turn into his path without yielding the right of way when the turn could not be made with reasonable safety (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141; *(Moreback v Mesquita,*17 AD3d 420 [2005]; *Torro v Schiller,*8 AD3d 364 [2004]).

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent (see *Rieman v Smith,*302 AD2d 510 [2003]; *Szczotka v Adler,*291 AD2d 444 [2002]). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the hearsay statement concerning the accident allegedly made by Mary Párente to Diane Carabella, even if considered by the court, was speculative as to whether the defendant was speeding and, as such, was insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment *(see Rieman v Smith, supra; Szczotka v Adler, supra).*Adams, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### Maurice Richards et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 46543.)

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding damages of $28,500, plus interest, to claimants for the appropriation of their real property. The appropriation consisted of .848 acre of a 1.7-aere parcel of land and included a stone dwelling and cottage. Both appraisers agreed that the loss of these buildings destroyed the economic usefulness of the motel and cabin units located on the remaining property. The claimants’ appraiser used' three methods in arriving at a market value of $44,000 before the taking and $10,450 for the remainder. His valuation based on reproduction cost less depreciation is inapplicable to the present case since the property was not a specialty, although perhaps unique in the building material of the residence. He capitalized the income of the rental business, but in so doing he *assumed*factually unsupported expenses and also gave no factual support for his capitalization figure and, accordingly, the result is not a proper measure of damages. He also utilized comparable sales, but his adjustments as to the buildings involved in such sales were either based solely upon his judgment or upon reproduction costs and in either event the result has no probative value of any consequence. All of the appraiser’s methods of arriving' at market value were either erroneously applied or unsupported by evidence. The appraiser for the State used two methods to arrive at a before appropriation market value of $18,000 and a value of $3,000 for the remainder. These two methods were: 1. Income approach. The appraiser took the income figures as supplied by the owner, arriving at a higher gross income of his own; considered the location of the premises; the advent of new motels; that the present cabin and motel were suitable only for warm weather occupancy, but at the same time finding the house to be a year-round home. He adopted a multiple to which there was no objection and reached a figure for this approach of $17,600. 2. Comparable sales. As the result of comparable sales and necessary adjustments, he arrived at a figure of $18,000. The methods adopted by the State and the factors used in substantiating the methods were, under the circumstances, proper and the proof supports them and rather than grant a new trial this court adopts the market value as proven by the State. Accordingly, the *592court finds the before value to be $18,000, the after value $3,000 and damages in the amount of $15,000, computed as direct damages $11,850 and consequential damages of $3,150. Judgment modified, by reducing the amount thereof to $15,000, as computed above, together with appropriate interest, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy J.
52.203-18 Prohibition on Contracting with

Entities that Require Certain Internal

Confidentiality Agreements or StatementsRepresentation.

As prescribed in 3.909-3(a), insert the following provision:

Prohibition on Contracting with Entities that Require Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or

Statements-Representation (Jan 2017)

(a) Definition. As used in this provisionInternal confidentiality agreement or statement, subcontract, and subcontractor , are defined in the

clause at 52.203-19, Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or

Statements.

(b) In accordance with section 743 of Division E, Title VII, of the Consolidated and Further

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) and its successor provisions in subsequent

appropriations acts (and as extended in continuing resolutions), Government agencies are not

permitted to use funds appropriated (or otherwise made available) for contracts with an entity that

requires employees or subcontractors of such entity seeking to report waste, fraud, or abuse to sign

internal confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting such

employees or subcontractors from lawfully reporting such waste, fraud, or abuse to a designated

investigative or law enforcement representative of a Federal department or agency authorized to

receive such information.

(c) The prohibition in paragraph (b) of this provision does not contravene requirements applicable to

Standard Form 312, (Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement), Form 4414 (Sensitive

Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement), or any other form issued by a Federal

department or agency governing the nondisclosure of classified information.

(d) Representation. By submission of its offer, the Offeror represents that it will not require its

employees or subcontractors to sign or comply with internal confidentiality agreements or

statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting such employees or subcontractors from lawfully

reporting waste, fraud, or abuse related to the performance of a Government contract to a

designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a Federal department or agency

authorized to receive such information (e.g., agency Office of the Inspector General).

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.203 [Reserved]
52.211-2           Availability of Defense Specifications, Standards, and Data Item Descriptions in the Acquisition Streamlining and Standardization Information System (ASSIST) website.       As prescribed in 11.204(b), insert the following provision:          Availability of Defense Specifications, Standards, and Data Item Descriptions in the Acquisition Streamlining and Standardization Information System (ASSIST) website (Sep 2023)                                       (a)                   Most unclassified Defense specifications and standards may be downloaded from the ASSIST website at https://assist.dla.mil.                                          (b)                   Defense documents not available from ASSIST may be requested from the Defense Standardization Program Office by—                                                         (1)                         Using the ASSIST feedback module ( *https://assist.dla.mil/​feedback*); or                                                            (2)                         Contacting the Defense Standardization Program Office by telephone at 571–767–6888 or email at assisthelp@dla.mil.                                                                    (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.211 [Reserved]
#### § 52.22 Report of inspection results prior to issuance of formal report.

Upon request of any interested party, the results of an inspection may be telegraphed or telephoned to him, or to any other person designated by him, at his expense.
#### § 51.647 Slightly colored.

*Slightly colored* means that, except for a 2-inch circle in the aggregate of green color, the portion of the fruit surface which is not discolored shows some yellow color.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LAMONTE HERRING,

Petitioner,

v. 4:20cv512–WS/HTC

MARK S. INCH,

Respondent.

 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 18) docketed July 15, 2021. The magistrate judge recommends that

Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as untimely.

Petitioner has filed objections (ECF No. 21) to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, and those objections have been carefully reviewed by the

undersigned. 

Upon review of the record in light of Petitioner’s objections, the court has

determined that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation should be

Case 4:20-cv-00512-WS-HTC Document 22 Filed 10/12/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

adopted. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 18) is

hereby ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 18) is

DISMISSED as untimely.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "Petitioner's petition for writ of

habeas corpus is DISMISSED."

4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

5. Petitioner’s request (ECF No. 21) for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of October , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. 

Case 4:20-cv-00512-WS-HTC Document 22 Filed 10/12/21 Page 2 of 2