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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2598 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish and operate a 

community-based outpatient clinic in Alpena, Michigan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 7, 2006 

Ms. STABENOW introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish 

and operate a community-based outpatient clinic in 

Alpena, Michigan. 

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 ‘‘Alpena, Michigan, 

5 Community Based Outpatient Clinic Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMMUNITY BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC IN 

7 ALPENA, MICHIGAN. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

9 shall establish and operate a community-based outpatient 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 2598 IS

1 clinic for veterans at a location selected by the Secretary 

2 in Alpena, Michigan. 

3 (b) DEADLINE.—The Secretary shall begin the oper4 ation of the clinic required by subsection (a) not later than 

5 one year after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

6 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

7 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Veterans 

8 Affairs for fiscal year 2007 such sums as may be nec9 essary to carry out this section. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Order entered July 21, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-91-01392-CR

ALFRED LEE STONE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 05-15-00661-CV

IN RE ALFRED LEE STONE, Relator

ORDER

The Court DENIES appellant’s July 20, 2015 pro se motions to forward the records in 

the above cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
4.1201 Policy.       (a) Offerors and quoters are required to complete electronic annual representations and certifications in SAM accessed via https://www.sam.gov as a part of required registration (see FAR 4.1102).                                          (b)                                                         (1) All registrants are required to review and update the representations and certifications submitted to SAM as necessary, but at least annually, to ensure they are kept current, accurate, and complete. The representations and certifications are effective until one year from date of submission or update to SAM.                                                            (2) A contractors that represented itself as a small business prior to award of a contract must update the representations and certifications in SAM in accordance with 52.219-28, A contractor that represented itself as other than small business before contract award and qualifies as a small business may update its representations and certifications in SAM in accordance with 52.219-28.                                                                             (c) Data in SAM is archived and is electronically retrievable. Therefore, when a prospective contractor has completed representations and certifications electronically in SAM, the contracting officer must reference the date of SAM verification in the contract file to satisfy contract file documentation requirements of 4.803(a)(11). However, if an offeror identifies changes to SAM data pursuant to the FAR provisions at 52.204-8(d) or 52.212-3(b), the contracting officer must include a copy of the changes in the contract file.                                          (d) The contracting officer shall incorporate the representations and certifications by reference in the contract (see 52.204-19, or for acquisitions of commercial products or commercial services see 52.212-4(v)).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 4.12 - Representations and Certifications
§ 7.11 Election of county committee members. ( a ) Where there are three local administrative areas as specified in § 7.6, there will be an election of a county committee member and, if available, any alternates, for a term of not more than 3 years, or until such person's successor is elected and qualified, in only one of the local administrative areas so that the term of office of one county committee member and any alternates within one of the local administrative areas will expire each year.
( b ) Where there are more than three local administrative areas as specified in § 7.6, there will be an election in at least one of the local administrative areas each year, such that the term of office of the county committee member(s) and any alternates within at least one-third of the local administrative areas will expire each year.
( c ) Every 3 years, the eligible voters in a local administrative area will elect a county committee member and may elect first and second alternates, as available, to serve. The alternates will serve, in the order of the number of votes received, as acting members of the county committee, in case of the temporary absence of a member, or to become a member of the county committee in that same order elected in case of the resignation, disqualification, removal, or death of a member. In other words, the candidate receiving the most votes will be elected as the committee member, and the candidates receiving the second and third most votes, if there are multiple candidates, will be elected as first and second alternates, respectively.
( d ) An alternate serving as an acting member of the county committee will have the same duties, responsibilities, and authority as a regular member of such committee. In the event an alternate fills a permanent vacancy on the county committee, such person will assume the remainder of the unexpired term of the county committee member who was replaced.
( e ) The election must be conducted in all counties by mail or other distribution of ballots in accordance with the Uniform Guidelines, except that the Deputy Administrator may authorize use of the meeting or polling place method in any county where such exception is deemed justified.
( f ) Elections will be by secret ballot with each eligible voter allowed to cast one vote and having the option of writing in the name of a candidate.
( g ) Failure to elect alternates at the regular election will not invalidate such election or require a special election to elect alternates.
```

[107th Congress Public Law 257]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ257.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 1737]]

Public Law 107-257
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed at 8th 
  Avenue and Mill Street in Eugene, Oregon, as the ``Wayne Lyman Morse 
    United States Courthouse''. <<NOTE: Oct. 29, 2002 -  [S. 1270]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF WAYNE LYMAN MORSE UNITED STATES 
                            COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse to be constructed at 8th Avenue and 
Mill Street in Eugene, Oregon, shall be known and designated as the 
``Wayne Lyman Morse United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Wayne Lyman Morse 
United States Courthouse.

    Approved October 29, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1270 (H.R. 2672)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-428 accompanying H.R. 2672 (Comm. on 
Transporation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 147 (2001):
                                    Nov. 15, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.
                                                        Vol. 148 (2002):
                                    Oct. 16, considered and passed 
                                        House.

                                  <all>
```
13.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies and procedures for the acquisition of supplies and services, including

construction, research and development, commercial products, and commercial services, the

aggregate amount of which does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (see 2.101).

subpart 13.5 provides special authority for acquisitions of commercial products and commercial

services exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold but not exceeding $7.5 million ($15 million

for acquisitions as described in 13.500 (c)), including options. See part 12 for policies applicable to

the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services exceeding the micro-purchase

threshold. See 36.602-5 for simplified procedures to be used when acquiring architect-engineer

services.

Parent topic: Part 13 - Simplified Acquisition Procedures
§ 330.400 Regulation of certain garbage. ( a ) *Certain interstate movements and imports* — ( 1 ) *Interstate movements of garbage from Hawaii and U.S. territories and possessions to other States.* Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau are hereby quarantined, and the movement of garbage therefrom to any other State is hereby prohibited except as provided in this subpart in order to prevent the introduction and spread of exotic plant pests and diseases.
( 2 ) *Imports of garbage.* In order to protect against the introduction of exotic animal and plant pests and diseases, the importation of garbage from all foreign countries except Canada is prohibited except as provided in § 330.401(b).
( b ) *Definitions* —*Agricultural waste.* Byproducts generated by the rearing of animals and the production and harvest of crops or trees. Animal waste, a large component of agricultural waste, includes waste (*e.g.*, feed waste, bedding and litter, and feedlot and paddock runoff) from livestock, dairy, and other animal-related agricultural and farming practices. *Approved facility.* A facility approved by the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, upon his determination that it has equipment and uses procedures that are adequate to prevent the dissemination of plant pests and livestock or poultry diseases, and that it is certified by an appropriate Government official as currently complying with the applicable laws for environmental protection.
*Approved sewage system.* A sewage system approved by the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, upon his determination that the system is designed and operated in such a way as to preclude the discharge of sewage effluents onto land surfaces or into lagoons or other stationary waters, and otherwise is adequate to prevent the dissemination of plant pests and livestock or poultry diseases, and that is certified by an appropriate Government official as currently complying with the applicable laws for environmental protection.
*Carrier.* The principal operator of a means of conveyance.
*Garbage.* All waste material that is derived in whole or in part from fruits, vegetables, meats, or other plant or animal (including poultry) material, and other refuse of any character whatsoever that has been associated with any such material.
*Incineration.* To reduce garbage to ash by burning.
*Interstate.* From one State into or through any other State.
*Sterilization.* Cooking garbage at an internal temperature of 212 °F for 30 minutes.
*Stores.* The food, supplies, and other provisions carried for the day-to-day operation of a conveyance and the care and feeding of its operators.
*Yard waste.* Solid waste composed predominantly of grass clippings, leaves, twigs, branches, and other garden refuse.
§ 650.10 Adoption of an EIS prepared by a cooperating agency. ( a ) If NRCS adopts an EIS prepared by another Federal or State agency, the RFO is to review the document to insure that it meets the requirements of the CEQ regulations and NRCS-NEPA procedures.
( b ) If the actions included in the EIS are substantially the same as those proposed by NRCS, the RFO is to recirculate the EIS as “final.” The final EIS is to include an appropriate explanation of the action. If these actions are not substantially the same, the EIS is to be supplemented and recirculated as a draft EIS. The RFO is to inform the preparing agency of the proposed action.
( c ) If the adopted EIS is not final, if it is the subject of a referral under 40 CFR part 1504, or if the statement's adequacy is in litigation, the RFO is to include an appropriate explanation in the EIS.
( d ) The RFO is to take appropriate action to inform the public and appropriate agencies of the proposed action.
§ 58.442 Laboratory and quality control tests. ( a ) *Chemical analyses* — ( 1 ) *Milkfat and moisture.* One sample shall be tested from each vat of the finished cheese to assure compliance with composition requirements.
( 2 ) *Test method.* Chemical analysis shall be made in accordance with the methods described in Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists as specified in the appropriate standards of identity, the latest edition of Standard Methods or by other methods giving equivalent results.
( b ) *Weight or volume control.* Representative samples of the finished product shall be checked during the packaging operation to assure compliance with the stated net weight on the container of consumer size packages.
Of Arizona (comprising of Pinal County, Pima County, Maricopa County, and rest of the state), 

the four agencies stated that they lack authority under state law to regulate GHGs. 

 Pinal County informed us by letter to EPA dated August 2, 2010, and by verbal 

communications that, based on state law, prevailing rules under the existing, approved 

title V program do not regulate GHGs. 

 Pima County staff informed us through verbal communications (with Richard Grimaldi 

on Nov. 30) that such authority must be granted by the state before the agency can 

regulate GHGs under the title V program. 

 Maricopa County staff also informed us through verbal communications (with Jo 

Crumbaker on Nov. 30) that such authority must be granted by the state before the 

agency can regulate GHGs under the title V program. 

 ADEQ informed us by letter to EPA dated August 27, 2010, that “ADEQ does not have 

the authority to regulate GHGs under the PSD or Title V permitting programs.” They 

stated that “Arizona law would have to be amended before ADEQ could regulate GHGs 

under its PSD or Title V programs.”

Of Nevada (in portions of Clark County and Washoe County only), the two agencies stated that 

they lack authority to regulate GHGs (via written correspondence). 

 Clark County stated in their letter submitted to EPA dated August 2, 2010, that the 

existing, approved title V program is not sufficient to provide authority to issue title V 

permits to GHG sources. 

 Washoe County informed us in an e-mail dated December 2, 2010, that their rules do 

not define “Title V applicability in a way that would include greenhouse gas sources as 

required in the Tailoring Rule. Therefore, [they] will need to implement a modification 

of the Title V applicability rules to include greenhouse gas sources.” 

Of Nevada (rest of state, excluding Clark County and Washoe County): 

 NDEP stated that the existing, approved title V program has authority to regulate GHGs 

only at the 100 tpy threshold, but not in a manner consistent with the Tailoring Rule (via verbal 

communications with Greg Remer on Dec. 10).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7064

MICHAEL ANTHONY BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DANIEL L. STIENEKE, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-364-5-BR2) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,we deny Brown’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Brown v. Stieneke , No. CA-98-364-5-BR2 (E.D.N.C. June 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
160 So.2d 595

#### Mack PARKER v. INTERSTATE LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 47113.

Feb. 24, 1964.

In re: Interstate Life and Accident Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 159 So. 2d 3.

Writ refused. The judgment of the Court ■of Appeal is correct.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

KELVIN BOWMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:03cv568/RV/EMT

JAMES CROSBY, et al.,

 Defendants.

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation dated October 21, 2005. Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the report and

recommendation and has 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 all timely filed objections.

Having considered the report and recommendation, and all 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. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (Doc. 45) is DENIED as

moot.

4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of November, 2005.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

UNITED STATES SENIOR JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-00568-RV-EMT Document 51 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 1
52.227-12 [Reserved]

Parent topic: 52.227 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:04cr5/MCR

3:07cv264/MCR/MD

LARRY DION HAMMOND

 /

O R D E R

This cause comes on for considerationupon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated December 22, 2009. The defendant previously has been

furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1), and I have made a de novo determination of those portions to which an

objection has been made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed by the parties, 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. The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. §

2255 (doc. 203) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 2010.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
**REPORT
      ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA**









LNR
      Partners, Inc., (the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance
      as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006
      through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing
      criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal
      Regulations (the “CFR”), except for criteria 229.1122(d)(1)(iii), (3)(i)(c),
      (3)(i)(d), (3)(ii), (3)(iii), (3)(iv), (4)(ix), (4)(x), 4(xi), 4(xii), 4(xiii)
      and (4)(xv) of the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not
      applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the commercial
      mortgage-backed securities transactions covered by this report (such criteria,
      after giving effect to the exceptions identified above, the “Applicable
      Servicing Criteria”). The transactions covered by this report, include the
      commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions for which the Asserting
      Party
      served as special servicer, that were completed on or after January 1,
      2006, and that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform Transactions”).




The
      Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
      Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party
      has
      complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria
      as of
      December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform
      Transactions taken as a whole.




Deloitte
      & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued
      an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable
      Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.






LNR
      PARTNERS INC., as Special Servicer














By:
            /s/
              Susan K Chapman
            
            
            Date:
            
            February
                28, 2007Susan
                K. Chapman
              Vice
                President
§ 66.108 Text message disclosure. The regulated entity must not charge a person any fee to access the bioengineered food information through text message and must comply with the requirements described in this section. ( a ) The label must include this statement “Text [command word] to [number] for bioengineered food information.” The number must be a number, including a short code, that sends an immediate response to the consumer's mobile device.
( b ) The response must be a one-time response and the only information in the response must be the appropriate bioengineered food disclosure described in § 66.102 or § 66.116.
( c ) The response must exclude marketing and promotional information.
( d ) A regulated entity that selects the text message option must comply with the requirements of this paragraph (d). ( 1 ) The regulated entity must not collect, analyze, or sell any personally identifiable information about consumers or the devices of consumers.
( 2 ) The regulated entity must not use any information related to the text message option for any marketing purposes.
( 3 ) If any information must be collected to carry out the purposes of this part, the information must be deleted as soon as possible and not be used for any other purpose.