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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2693 

To prevent congressional reapportionment distortions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2006 

Mr. BURNS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To prevent congressional reapportionment distortions. 

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 ‘‘Fair and Accurate 

5 Representation Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF CONGRESSIONAL REAPPORTION7 MENT DISTORTIONS. 

8 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

9 (1) in recent years, millions of aliens have en10 tered the United States in violation of immigration 

11 laws and are now residing illegally in the United 

12 States and are subject to deportation; 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2693 IS

1 (2) the established policy of the Bureau of the 

2 Census is to make a concerted effort to count the 

3 foreign born population within the United States 

4 without making a separate computation for illegal 

5 aliens; and 

6 (3) by including the millions of illegal aliens in 

7 the reapportionment base for the House of Rep8 resentatives, many States will lose congressional rep9 resentation which such States would not have other10 wise lost, thereby violating the constitutional prin11 ciple of ‘‘one man, one vote’’. 

12 (b) ADJUSTMENTS TO PREVENT DISTORTIONS.— 

13 Section 141 of title 13, United States Code, is amended— 

14 (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub15 section (h); and 

16 (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the fol17 lowing: 

18 ‘‘(g) The Secretary shall make such adjustments in 

19 total population figures as may be necessary, using such 

20 methods and procedures as the Secretary determines fea21 sible and appropriate, in order that aliens who are in the 

22 United States in violation of the immigration laws of the 

23 United States are not counted in tabulating population 

24 under subsection (b) for the purposes of apportionment 

25 of Representatives in Congress among the several States. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•S 2693 IS

1 Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to supersede 

2 section 195 of this title.’’. 

3 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 22(a) of 

4 the Act entitled ‘‘An Act To provide for the fifteenth and 

5 subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for appor6 tionment of Representatives in Congress’’, of June 18, 

7 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is amended by striking ‘‘as 

8 ascertained under the seventeenth and each subsequent 

9 decennial census of the population’’ and inserting ‘‘as 

10 ascertained and reported under section 141 of title 13, 

11 United States Code, for each decennial census of popu12 lation’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 481 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 481 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA OF

NORTHERN DIVISION

RALPH BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-642-MEF

)

CHAMPION ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the defendant's Motion to Stay Pending Settlement (Doc.

#50) filed on April 7, 2008, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED to and including July 7, 2008.

DONE this the 9th day of April, 2008.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 51 Filed 04/09/2008 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            6011 - INDX 2006-AR29 (JP MORGAN)



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2806 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2806

        To suspend temporarily the duty on sodium hypophosphite.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 16, 2006

  Mr. DeMint introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on sodium hypophosphite.

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

SECTION 1. SODIUM HYPOPHOSPHITE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.28.35       Sodium             Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         hypophosphite                                                      31/2009
                         (CAS No. 10039-56-
                         2) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2835.10.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### In re CUTTER’S ESTATE.

(Surrogate’s Court, New York County.

July 23, 1914.)

Wills (§ 220*)—Probate—Persons Who may Answer or Oppose.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2617, providing that any person named as devisee or legatee in a will propounded, or who is otherwise interested in sustaining or defeating it, may oppose the application for probate, one not an heir at law or next of kin of the deceased, and whose only interest was by reason of a clause of the will giving the descendants of a certain person, of whom he was one, a legacy of $5,000 each, and who on successfully contesting the will would receive no part of the property which would be distributed under the statute of distributions, had no interest that was threatened, and hence no standing to object to the probate of the will.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. §§ 532-537; Dec. Dig.

§ 220.*]

Application to strike out the answer filed by James H. Montgomery to the petition for probate of the will of Amelia G. Cutter deceased.

Application granted.

Miller, King, Lane & Trafford, of New York City (Perry D. Trafford, and Olin Potter Geer, both of New York City, of counsel), for petitioners.

O’Brien, Malevinsky & Driscoll, of New York City, for contestant Montgomery.

Woodford, Bovee & Butcher, of New York City, for respondents Flagg and others.

De Groot, Kenyon & Huber, of Brooklyn, for respondent Bulkley.

■ Satterlee, Canfield & Stone, of New York City, for respondents Patten and others.

Merle I. St. John, of New York City, for respondents Lent and others.

John McG. Goodale, of New York City, special guardian for Mills.

A. Perry Osborn, of New York City, special guardian.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

*921FOWLER, S.

This is a motion to strike out the answer filed to the petition for the probate of the alleged will of the deceased by James H. Montgomery, a legatee named in the will, upon the ground that he is not a person within the meaning of section 2617, C. C. P., who wotild be entitled to appear and file such answer. James H. Montgomery is not an heir at law or next of kin of the deceased. The only interest he has in the estate is by reason of the eleventh paragraph of the will, wherein the descendants of Annie F. Cutter are given each the sum of $5,000; he, being one of the descendants of Annie F. Cutter, is entitled to a $5,000 legacy. In the event that he should be successful in contesting the will of the deceased, he would receive no part of her property, which would be distributed under the statute of distribution, and it has been held that a person entitled to intervene under section 2617, C. C. P., in the matter of the probate of a will must have an interest to protect, one that is threatened. In this case any interest of Mr. Montgomery is protected, and it is only by his success in the contest that he would become a loser. He has no standing to object to the probate of the will. Matter of Hoyt, 55 Misc. Rep. 159, 106 N. Y. Supp. 359; affirmed 122 App. Div. 914, 107 N. Y. Supp. 1130, no opinion; affirmed 192 N. Y. 538, 84 N. E. 1114.

Application to strike out the answer is granted.
1

Fallon, Gail

From: Jay Baker <jbaker@utah.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 10:33 AM

To: Fallon, Gail

Cc: Dobrahner, Jaslyn

Subject: Re: Question on SIP Section XX.D.6

Gail, 

You are correct. The reference should be to the May 13, 2015 Staff Review. 

Thanks, 

Jay Baker | Environmental Scientist

Phone: 801.536.4015

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

195 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Website | Blog | Twitter | Facebook

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Fallon, Gail <fallon.gail@epa.gov> wrote: 

Hi Jay, 

There’s a footnote in the submittal (pdf p. 10 of attached) copied below that appears to have a typo. Just 

wanted to confirm this with you. Should the footnote actually read, “Staff Review 2008 PM BART 

Determination and Recommended Alternative to BART for NOx, May 13, 2015”? 

 

 

 

 

Thanks! 
2

 

Gail Fallon 

Environmental Engineer 

Air Quality Planning Unit 

US EPA, Region 8 

Denver, CO 

(303) 312-6281
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

KEVIN ANTHONY MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5725-MCR-HTC

JUDGE C. KINSEY, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

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

and Recommendation dated October 12, 2020. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was furnished 

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

file an objection pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have 

made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections 

thereto timely filed, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 6, is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-05725-MCR-HTC Document 7 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:20cv5725-MCR-HTC 

2. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of November, 2020.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05725-MCR-HTC Document 7 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 2
DELAWARE OTSEGO CORPORATION
1 Railroad Ave.
Cooperstown, NY  13326
Ph. 607 547 - 2555


For Immediate Release                         Contact:
                                              Phil Pepe, Jr.,  Ext. 267, or
                                                 914-968-6303 days/eves
                                                 voice mail.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


      DELAWARE OTSEGO CORPORATION CONFIRMS RECEIPT OF PURCHASE OFFER

Cooperstown, NY; August 11, 1997...   Everett Gilmour, Chairman of the Board 
of Directors of Delaware Otsego Corporation (NASDAQ Symbol "DOCP"), 
announced today the Company has received an offer from a group comprised of 
CSX Corporation, Norfolk Southern Corporation and Walter G. Rich to acquire
100% of the Company's outstanding stock at a price of $ 19.00 per share. 
The offer was received Friday evening (August 8, 1997).    Mr. Rich is 
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

     Company spokesperson Phil Pepe, Jr. said "The Company's Board of 
Directors met over the weekend  with its financial and legal advisors to 
review the offer as well as other possible alternatives."  The Board of 
Directors is reviewing all matters relating to interest in the company
and plans to continue discussions with the offering group.  Pepe said, "No 
further information can be made available at this time."

     Delaware Otsego Corporation is a non-rail holding company whose 
principal subsidiary, The New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway 
Corporation, provides rail freight service to customers
in New York and New Jersey.
                                   # # #

                                    - 79 -
§ 765.202 Borrower responsibilities. The borrower must: ( a ) Comply with all provisions of the loan agreements; ( 1 ) Non-compliance with the provisions of loan agreements and documents, other than failure to meet scheduled loan repayment installments contained in the promissory note, constitutes non-monetary default on FLP loans by the borrower;
( 2 ) Borrower non-compliance will be considered by the Agency when making eligibility determinations for future requests for assistance and may adversely impact such requests;
( b ) Maintain, protect, and account for all security;
( c ) Pay the following, unless State law requires the Agency to pay: ( 1 ) Fees for executing, filing or recording financing statements, continuation statements or other security instruments; and
( 2 ) The cost of lien search reports;
( d ) Pay taxes on property securing FLP loans when they become due;
( e ) Maintain insurance coverage in an amount specified by the Agency;
( f ) Protect the interests of the Agency when a third party brings suit or takes other action that could affect Agency security.
§ 760.1801 Administration. ( a ) The QLA Program is administered under the general supervision of the Administrator, Farm Service Agency (FSA), and the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs, FSA. The QLA Program is carried out by FSA State and county committees with instructions issued by the Deputy Administrator.
( b ) FSA State and county committees, and representatives and their employees, do not have authority to modify or waive any of the provisions of the regulations in this subpart or instructions issued by the Deputy Administrator.
( c ) The FSA State committee will take any action required by the regulations in this subpart that the FSA county committee has not taken. The FSA State committee will also: ( 1 ) Correct, or require an FSA county committee to correct, any action taken by the FSA county committee that is not in accordance with the regulations in this subpart; or
( 2 ) Require an FSA county committee to withhold taking any action that is not in accordance with this subpart.
( d ) No delegation to an FSA State or county committee precludes the FSA Administrator or the Deputy Administrator from determining any question arising under this subpart or from reversing or modifying any determination made by an FSA State or county committee.
( e ) The Deputy Administrator has the authority to: ( 1 ) Permit State and county committees to waive or modify a non-statutory deadline specified in this subpart; and
( 2 ) Delegate authority to FSA State or county committees to make determinations under § 760.1812(f) and (g).
( f ) Items of general applicability to program participants, including, but not limited to, application periods, application deadlines, internal operating guidelines issued to FSA State and county offices, prices, and payment factors established under this subpart, are not subject to appeal in accordance with part 780 of this chapter.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES PETTY, #124 252, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * Case No. 2:06-CV-639-WKW

RAY B. FINEDOR, et al, *

Defendants. *

ANSWER

Comes now the Defendant, Edward O. Hardy, by counsel, denying the Plaintiff’s

claims, and shows unto the Court as follows:

1. Defendant, Edward O. Hardy, denies the allegations in Ground One of the

Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. (See Exhibit “A”, Affidavit

of Edward O. Hardy attached hereto and made a part hereof.)

2. Defendant, Edward O. Hardy, denies the allegations in Ground Two of the

Plaintiff’s Complaint and demands strict proof thereof.

DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. Plaintiff cites no conduct on the part of Defendant Hardy that meets the elements

of extortion as defined under Federal or State law.

3. Plaintiff and Defendant Hardy entered into a written contract (See Exhibit “B”,

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 22 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 1 of 3
South Alabama Community Center Contract attached hereto and made a part

hereof) voluntarily and without any solicitation on the part of Defendant Hardy.

Plaintiff agreed to each and every term of said contract by initialing thereof as

well as signing the entire contract. Plaintiff breached the terms of said contract

by violating the conditions thereof. 

Respectfully submitted this 8th day of November, 2006. 

 s/ Clifton F. Hastings 

Clifton F. Hastings (HAS014)

Attorney for Defendant Edward O. Hardy

CERVERA, RALPH & REEVES, LLC

914 South Brundidge Street

P. O. Box 325

Troy, Alabama 36081

(334) 566-0116

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 22 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing Answer has been electronically served

upon the following on the 8th day of November, 2006 by CM/ECF:

Steven Mallette Sirmon 

Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles 

301 South Ripley St 

PO Box 302405 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

steven.sirmon@paroles.alabama.gov

and I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing Answer has been served upon the

following by US Mail on the 8th day of November, 2006:

James Petty

AIS #139044

Easterling Correctional Facility

200 Wallace Drive

Clio, Alabama 36017-2615

 s/ Clifton F. Hastings 

Clifton F. Hastings

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 22 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 22-2 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 22-2 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 22-3 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

STEVEN HAROLD BEASLEY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:02-cv-00129-MP-WCS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 122, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends that the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits be

affirmed. The Magistrate filed the Report on February 9, 2009. The parties were each furnished

with a copy of the Report and afforded an opportunity to file objections. However, neither party

has filed an objection, and the time to do so has passed. Upon consideration, the Court agrees

with the Magistrate that the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed for the reasons

stated by the Magistrate in the Report. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 122, is ADOPTED and

incorporated herein. The decision of the Commissioner denying benefits is AFFIRMED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 5:02-cv-00129-MP-WCS Document 123 Filed 03/23/09 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 810.602 Definition of other terms. ( a ) *Damaged kernels.* Kernels and pieces of flaxseed kernels that are badly ground-damaged, badly weather-damaged, diseased, frost-damaged, germ-damaged, heat-damaged, insect-bored, mold-damaged, sprout-damaged, or otherwise materially damaged.
( b ) *Dockage.* All matter other than flaxseed that can be removed from the original sample by use of an approved device according to procedures prescribed in FGIS instructions. Also, underdeveloped, shriveled, and small pieces of flaxseed kernels removed in properly separating the material other than flaxseed and that cannot be recovered by properly rescreening or recleaning.
( c ) *Heat-damaged kernels.* Kernels and pieces of flaxseed kernels that are materially discolored and damaged by heat.
( d ) *Other grains.* Barley, corn, cultivated buckwheat, einkorn, emmer, guar, hull-less barley, nongrain sorghum, oats, Polish wheat, popcorn, poulard wheat, rice, rye, safflower, sorghum, soybeans, spelt, sunflower seed, sweet corn, triticale, wheat, and wild oats.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 810.2003 Basis of determination.

Each determination of heat-damaged kernels, damaged kernels, material other than wheat or rye, and foreign material (total) is made on the basis of the grain when free from dockage and shrunken and broken kernels. Other determinations not specifically provided for under the general provisions are made on the basis of the grain when free from dockage except the determination of odor is made on either the basis of the grain as a whole or the grain when free from dockage.
§ 789.52 Compulsory process. ( a ) If a person refuses to permit a duly authorized representative of USDA to have access to any premises or source of information necessary to the administration or the enforcement of the Defense Production Act and other applicable laws, this part, or official actions, the USDA representative may seek compulsory process. Compulsory process is the institution of appropriate legal action, including ex parte application for an inspection warrant or its equivalent, in any forum of appropriate jurisdiction.
( b ) Compulsory process may be sought in advance of an audit, investigation, or other inquiry, if, in the judgment of USDA, there is reason to believe that a person will refuse to permit an audit, investigation, or other inquiry, or that other circumstances exist that make such process desirable or necessary.