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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 302 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2005 

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

AN ACT 

To make improvements in the Foundation for the National 

Institutes of Health. 

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 ‘‘Foundation for the 

5 National Institutes of Health Improvement Act’’. 
2 

S 302 RFH 

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH ESTABLISH2 MENT AND DUTIES. 

3 Section 499 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 290b) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (d)— 

6 (A) in paragraph (1)— 

7 (i) by amending subparagraph (D)(ii) 

8 to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(ii) Upon the appointment of the ap10 pointed members of the Board under clause 

11 (i)(II), the terms of service as members of the 

12 Board of the ex officio members of the Board 

13 described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph 

14 (B) shall terminate. The ex officio members of 

15 the Board described in clauses (iii) and (iv) of 

16 subparagraph (B) shall continue to serve as ex 

17 officio members of the Board.’’; and 

18 (ii) in subparagraph (G), by inserting 

19 ‘‘appointed’’ after ‘‘that the number of’’; 

20 (B) by amending paragraph (3)(B) to read 

21 as follows: 

22 ‘‘(B) Any vacancy in the membership of 

23 the appointed members of the Board shall be 

24 filled in accordance with the bylaws of the 

25 Foundation established in accordance with 

26 paragraph (6), and shall not affect the power of 
3 

S 302 RFH 

1 the remaining appointed members to execute 

2 the duties of the Board.’’; and 

3 (C) in paragraph (5), by inserting ‘‘ap4 pointed’’ after ‘‘majority of the’’; 

5 (2) in subsection (j)— 

6 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking 

7 ‘‘(d)(2)(B)(i)(II)’’ and inserting ‘‘(d)(6)’’; 

8 (B) in paragraph (4)— 

9 (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting 

10 ‘‘, including an accounting of the use of 

11 amounts transferred under subsection (l)’’ 

12 before the period at the end; and 

13 (ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and 

14 inserting the following: 

15 ‘‘(C) The Foundation shall make copies of 

16 each report submitted under subparagraph (A) 

17 available— 

18 ‘‘(i) for public inspection, and shall 

19 upon request provide a copy of the report 

20 to any individual for a charge that shall 

21 not exceed the cost of providing the copy; 

22 and 

23 ‘‘(ii) to the appropriate committees of 

24 Congress.’’; and 
4 

S 302 RFH 

1 (C) in paragraph (10), by striking ‘‘of 

2 Health.’’ and inserting ‘‘of Health and the Na3 tional Institutes of Health may accept transfers 

4 of funds from the Foundation.’’; and 

5 (3) by striking subsection (l) and inserting the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(l) FUNDING.—From amounts appropriated to the 

8 National Institutes of Health, for each fiscal year, the Di9 rector of NIH shall transfer not less than $500,000 and 

10 not more than $1,250,000 to the Foundation.’’. 

Passed the Senate July 27, 2005. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
#### Harmeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-4582-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Aug. 24, 2007.

*43Hector M. Roman, Roman & Singh, LLP, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas B. Fatouros, Trial Attorney, James A. Hurley, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: Hon. JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Hon. REENA RAGGI, Hon. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Harmeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of an August 31, 2006 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. *In re Harmeet Singh,*No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *See Kaur v. BIA,*413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). An abuse of discretion may be found where the decision “provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” *Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted).

As a preliminary matter, to the extent that Singh attempts to reargue the merits of the underlying denial of his asylum application, that decision is not properly before this Court. Only the BIA’s August 2006 decision is before us as that is the only decision from which a petition for review was timely filed. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

The BIA properly denied Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed nearly eight years after the final order was issued in his case. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (an alien must file a motion to reopen within ninety days of the final administrative decision). Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Singh failed to present material evidence of changed country conditions in order to satisfy the exception to this bar. *Cf.*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *Poradisova v. Gonzales,*420 F.3d 70, 78 (2d Cir.2005). Neither Singh’s bare assertions in his motion nor the newspaper articles he submitted state how country conditions have changed in India, indicating, at most, that some incidents of violence have occurred. Indeed, Singh’s allegations that police “still” arrest members of his party and “still” raid his home do not, on their face, suggest that there has been any change.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(d)(1).
### Owosso Graphic Arts Terri Zick to: Todd Ramaly 02/23/2010 04:05 PM Cc: Christopher Lambesis, Kathy Wilson , Jake Gadd

From: Terri Zick <tzick@cticompanies.com > To: Todd Ramaly/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Christopher Lambesis/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy Wilson

<kathywilson@owossographic.com >, Jake Gadd <jakegadd@owossographic.com >

ToddThank you for informally discussing the status of the Owosso Graphic Arts delisting petition with me this afternoon. We understand that Chris Lambesis is home ill and the conference call that we had planned for today is delayed.

Based on our discussion earlier today (ie. establishing that there is NO possible way for NMP to reach the filter cake), we probably cannot rule out residue which may be on the plate after both the rinsing step and the heating step, however the potential for residue to survive BOTH the rinsing phase and the heating phase is remote.

The plates will vary in size and quantification of residue, if it exists would be difficult. My question to you and Chris based on the reality of the process is how do we put this issue to bed once and for all . If we cannot establish a "No exposure" condition, what kind & how many samples are we looking at? We need resolution on this and if we cannot use a reasonable rationalization based on the actual process, we need to know what our options are.



### Terri Zick 313-300-7401 cell tzick@cticompanies.com

CTI and Associates, Inc. 

### 51331 W. Pontiac Trail, Wixom, Ml 48393 248.486.5100 Phone / 248.486.5050 Fax

The information contained in this electronic message is privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is neither allowed nor intended. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by calling 800-CTI-TODAY and delete the message. Thank You!
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                          28,092
<SECURITIES>                                    63,564
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,420
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,947
<INVENTORY>                                      1,152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,082
<PP&E>                                          61,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,451
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 284,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,437
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           165
<OTHER-SE>                                     202,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   284,649
<SALES>                                         75,766
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,291
<CGS>                                           18,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,265
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                81,656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   842
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  81
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,627
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,645
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,982
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,982
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49


</TABLE>
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

80) ll-K- (B) -68 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:50 AM Sheet 80 of 325 
A_2_ 

'^~B 

II-K-(B)-68 

CLARIFICATION REQUESTED FOR MOST COST-EFFECTIVE FLUE 

GAS FLOW RATE FOR FGD. 

Letter from E. Medine, EEA to L. Broz, Acurex Corp. 

October 8, 1979. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-68
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3015 

To suspend temporarily the duty on calcium halophosphate phosphor activated 

by manganese and antimony. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2006 

Mr. REID (for Mr. ROCKEFELLER) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on calcium halophosphate 

phosphor activated by manganese and antimony. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CALCIUM HALOPHOSPHATE PHOSPHOR ACTI4 VATED BY MANGANESE AND ANTIMONY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 3015 IS

‘‘ 9902.32.08 Calcium halophosphate phosphor activated by manganese 

and antimony. Inorganic 

products of a kind used as 

luminophores (CAS No. 

75535–31–8) (provided for 

in subheading 3206.50.00) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604
June 28, 2005 

### Before Hon . F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK , Circuit Judge 

### Hon . I LANA D IAMOND R OVNER , Circuit Judge 

### Hon . D IANE P. W OOD , Circuit Judge
Nos. 02-3238 U NITED S TATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff-Appellee, v . L ISSETT R IVERA , Defendant-Appellant
. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 98 CR 923 Blanche M. Manning, Judge
.
Order The court’s opinion of June 16, 2005, is amended on page 4. The last paragraph of the opinion shall be replaced with the following language: By deciding not to take a cross-appeal, the United States has ensured that Rivera's sentence cannot be increased. SeeEl Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473, 479-82 (1999). (Earlier decisions, such as United States v. Schmeltzer, 960 F.2d 405, 408-09 (5th Cir. 1992), holding that a court of appeals may increase a defendant's sentence whether or not the prosecutor filed a notice of appeal, do not sur viveNeztsosie .) But the lack of a cross-appeal does not entitle Rivera to another shot at a sentence below 97 months, if the only lawful outcome on remand would be appli cation of the statutory minimum. It is accordingly unnecessary for us to consider whether Rivera's sentencing range under the Guidelines was calculated correctly; she cannot benefit from resentencing. Nor is a remand underPaladino appropriate, forBooker does not confer on district judges any discretion to give sentences below statutory floors. Any error the district judge may have made in resolving factual disputes in order to apply the Guidelines was harmless. Cf. United States v. Lee, 399 F.3d 864 (7th Cir. 2005).
156 So.2d 475

#### W. Litt MARTIN et al. v. Leonard J. TOUPS et al.

No. 46939.

Oct. 2, 1963.

In re: W. Litt Martin, Edward P. Gros and Donald P. Walther applying for writs of certiorari and mandamus.

Writs refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction, which may be invoked only when the applicant has no adequate remedy by appeal and is sustaining irreparable injury. Such is not the case here.
# L_2014328EN.01006001.xml

| 13.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 328/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 328/60

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 740/2014 of 8 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 200 of 9 July 2014
  )

On page 2, Annex, point II, sole entry:

for:

| | ‘Name | Name
  (Belarussian spelling) | Name
  (Russian Spelling) | Reasons | Date of listing |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Volkov, Vitaliy Nikolayevich | | | Judge at the regional court in Shklov. In January 2012 he decided to transfer former Presidential candidate and opposition activist N. Statkevich to a closed-type prison in Mogilov on the mere basis of alleged violations of the rules of imprisonment in Shklov penal colony IK-17. This decision has thus led to breaches of N. Statkevich's human rights including sleep deprivation and threatening his health. | 9.7.2014’ |

‘Name

Name

(Belarussian spelling)

Name

(Russian Spelling)

Reasons

Date of listing

Volkov, Vitaliy Nikolayevich

Judge at the regional court in Shklov. In January 2012 he decided to transfer former Presidential candidate and opposition activist N. Statkevich to a closed-type prison in Mogilov on the mere basis of alleged violations of the rules of imprisonment in Shklov penal colony IK-17. This decision has thus led to breaches of N. Statkevich's human rights including sleep deprivation and threatening his health.

9.7.2014’

read:

| | ‘Name | Name
  (Belarussian spelling) | Name
  (Russian Spelling) | Reasons |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 233. | Volkov, Vitaliy Nikolayevich | Волкаў, Віталь Мiкалаевiч | Волков, Виталий Николаевич | Judge at the regional court in Shklov. In January 2012 he decided to transfer former Presidential candidate and opposition activist N. Statkevich to a closed-type prison in Mogilov on the mere basis of alleged violations of the rules of imprisonment in Shklov penal colony IK-17. This decision has thus led to breaches of N. Statkevich's human rights including sleep deprivation and threatening his health.’ |

‘Name

Name

(Belarussian spelling)

Name

(Russian Spelling)

Reasons

233.

Volkov, Vitaliy Nikolayevich

Волкаў, Віталь Мiкалаевiч

Волков, Виталий Николаевич

Judge at the regional court in Shklov. In January 2012 he decided to transfer former Presidential candidate and opposition activist N. Statkevich to a closed-type prison in Mogilov on the mere basis of alleged violations of the rules of imprisonment in Shklov penal colony IK-17. This decision has thus led to breaches of N. Statkevich's human rights including sleep deprivation and threatening his health.’

---
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 29, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________

m 04-40496

_______________

LARRY BROCK; ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

ALICE HIGGINS; WILLIAM HIGGINS; MIKE HIGGINS ENTERPRISES, INC.;

KATHY PLUNKETT; CHARLES PLUNKETT; BILLY DAN ROLLING;

ADDIE HALL; SCOTT RENEAU; DONNA RENEAU,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

FLAVIO OLIVAREZ,

PlaintiffCounter DefendantAppellant,

VERSUS

BASKIN-ROBBINS USA, CO.; BASKIN-ROBBINS INC.,

DefendantsCounter ClaimantsAppellees.
2

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BASKIN-ROBBINS INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

CHARLES RONALD PLUNKETT; KATHY ELIZABETH PLUNKETT,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

m 5:01-CV-77

______________________________

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The plaintiffs appeal an adverse judgment,

partially resulting from a summary judgment

and partially from issues determined after a

trial. Plaintiffs claim, inter alia, improper use

of moniesin and from a trust fund intended for

advertising. 

We have reviewed the briefs and applicable

portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We conclude that the district court did not err in deciding that defendants did not commit an actionable breach of

fiduciary duty in administering the fund. Nor

was there error in denying leave to amend or

in the various rulings on discovery or in any

other aspect of the proceedings that is raised

on appeal.

The judgment, accordingly, isAFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is

not precedent except under the limited circumstances

set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
§ 760.635 Total farm revenue. ( a ) For the purpose of SURE payment calculation, total farm revenue will equal the sum obtained by adding the amounts calculated in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(12) of this section. ( 1 ) The estimated actual value for each crop produced on a farm, except for value loss crops, which equals the product obtained by multiplying: ( i ) The actual production of the payment acres for each crop on a farm for purposes of determining losses under FCIA or NAP; and
( ii ) NAMP, as calculated for the marketing year as specified in § 760.640 and as adjusted if required as specified in § 760.641.
( 2 ) The estimated actual value for each value loss crop produced on a farm that equals the value of inventory immediately after disaster.
( 3 ) 15 percent of the amount of any direct payments made to the participant under part 1412 of this title.
( 4 ) The total amount of any counter-cyclical and average crop revenue election payments made to the participant under part 1412 of this title.
( 5 ) The total amount of any loan deficiency payments, marketing loan gains, and marketing certificate gains made to the participant under parts 1421 and 1434 of this title.
( 6 ) The amount of payments for prevented planting.
( 7 ) The amount of crop insurance indemnities.
( 8 ) The amount of NAP payments received.
( 9 ) The value of any guaranteed payments made to a participant in lieu of production pursuant to an agreement or contract, if the crop is included in the SURE guarantee.
( 10 ) Salvage value for any crops salvaged.
( 11 ) The value of any other disaster assistance payments provided by the Federal Government for the same loss for which the eligible participant applied for SURE.
( 12 ) For crops for which the eligible participant received a waiver under the provisions of § 760.105(c) or obtained relief according to § 760.106, the value determined by FSA based on what the participant would have received, irrespective of any other provision, if NAP or crop insurance coverage had been obtained.
( b ) Sale of plant parts or by-products, such as straw, will not be counted as farm revenue.
( c ) For value loss crops: ( 1 ) Other inventory on hand or marketed at some time other than immediately prior to and immediately after the disaster event are irrelevant for revenue purposes and will not be counted as revenue for SURE.
( 2 ) Revenue will not be adjusted for market loss.
( 3 ) Quality losses will not be considered in determining revenue.
( 4 ) In no case will market price declines in value loss crops, due to any cause, be considered in the calculation of payments for those crops.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROGER WRIGHT, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:06-cv-0647-WKW

 )

PEMCO WORLD AIR SERVICES, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Recognizing the defendant may have new owners soon, the court hereby gives notice that it

will not be inclined to allow defendant to also have new counsel at this stage of the proceedings,

unless there would be no interruption in the trial schedule. Therefore, upon consideration of the

Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. # 16), which is opposed in part by the plaintiff, it

is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The deadline to file

dispositive motions is extended from September 10, 2007, to September 24, 2007. The deadline

for counsel for the parties to conduct a face-to-face settlement conference is extended from October

1, 2007, to October 29, 2007. With respect to the defendant’s request to extend all other deadlines,

it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

DONE this 10th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 18 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 1 of 1