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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3248 

To suspend temporarily the duty on right angle ground fault circuit 

interrupters. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

Mr. FRIST (for Mrs. DOLE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on right angle ground fault 

circuit interrupters. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN RIGHT ANGLE GROUND FAULT CIR4 CUIT INTERRUPTERS. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.85.34 Right angle ground fault circuit interrupters of 15 amps or more (provided for 

in subheading 8536.30.80) ...................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3248 IS 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
Fig. 1 (2010) 0 4 8 12 16

0 25 50CES1 mRNA

Age (days) r = 0.717 (P = 0.003)CES1 mRNA

0 10 20 30 40

*

* * * ** *

1 2 3 4 5

1 = 1-31 days; 2 = 35-70 days

3 = 89-119 days; 4 = 188-332

days; 5 = adult (>18 year)CES1 mRNA

0 8 16 24 32

0 50 100 150 200 r = 0.499 (P < 0.001)

Age (days) A

B

CFig. 2 (2010) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5CES1 Protein

1 2 3 4 5

1 = 1-31 days; 2 = 35-70 days

3 = 89-119 days; 4 = 188-332

days; 5 = adult (>18 year) CES1

GAPDH *

* * ** *

* *

0 16 32 48

012CES1 mRNA

CES1 Protein r = 0.470 (P = 0.001) A

B
# Low Country RC Flight Manual December 14, 2014 

## T he safe operation of the UAS will be the responsibility of the Pilot in C ommand (PIC). The following procedures are to be reviewed before each flight. 1. Prior to operations, the PIC must have accumulated and logged, a minimum of twenty hours as UAS pilot operating the make and model of UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption and three take - offs and three landings in the preceding 90 days. Training, proficiency, experience - building, and take - off and landing currency flights can be conducted under this grant of exemption to accomplish the required flight time and 90 day currency. During training, proficiency, experience - building, and take - off and landing currency flights all persons not essentia l for flight operations are considered non - participants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from non - participants

. 2. Pre -flight inspection of battery condition/level in both the transmitter and UAS. The binding/link feature will not l et the UAS start if communication is not established. 3. P rior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe flight. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohi bited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground Control Station, if utilized, must be included in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and alterations must b e properly documented in the aircraft records. 4. Always fly the UAS within visual eye contact at an altitude of not more than 400 ft above ground

. 5. Flights should be in Class G of the airspace. Uncontrolled airspace or Class G airspace is the portion of the airspace that has not been designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E. It is therefore designated uncontrolled airspace. Class G airspace extends from the surface to the base of the overlying Class E airspace. P ilots should review and observe the visual flight rule (VFR) mi nim um s which apply to Class G airspace. 

### 6. Never encroach on restricted flight areas such as airports , military bases , and other restricted National Airspace S ystem. Refer to: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/p hak%20 - %20chapter%2014.pdf 7. N ever directly above crowds or public places. 8. Never fly at night, ke ep UAS within line of sight of the Pilot in Command

. 9. H ave a separate safety observer at all times in communication with the PIC 10. Check for power- lines, antennas and other overhead objects. 11. Monitor wind conditions. Do not fly if wind conditions exceed 20 knots

. 12. T he orientation of flights will be such that the pilot in command (PIC) always has a visual on the rear mounted LED flight Indicator. 13. Log a ll flights including training in Pilot’s Log Book.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CR. NO. 2:06cr178-SRW

)

CARRIE J. FLOWERS )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of defendant's motion to continue (Doc. # 6), filed September 15,

2006, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED. The arraignment is

continued to October 17, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. in courtroom 5-B, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United

States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

DONE, this 19th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00178-SRW Document 7 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 1 of 1
/ CiTY/BOROUGH OF JU 

### ALASKAS CAPITAL CITY

IV!r. Kevin Schlemmer, Chid: EAS Division Office ofAviationAnalysis U.S. Department ofTransportation 

### 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington. DC 20590 

## OFFlCE OF 

## THE MAYOR Tclcph<'nc: (907) 586-52-10; Facsimile: (907) 586-5335 Mavor((i<E_.juneau.ak.us December 1, 2014

Re: Continuation of Alaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cordova, Gustavus, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat, Alaska, Docket OST-1998-4899 Dear

### Mr. Schlemmer: This letter is to express strong support for the selection of Alaska Airlines to continue to provide essential air serviceto our SoutheastAlaska communities. Alaska's service connects Southeast Alaskapassengers to one or more major communities ofinterest, with single-plane service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan or Seattle. From these hubs, our community can access the airline's extensiveroute system andbenefitfrom its marketing relationships with other carriers. The passenger and cargo aircraft, vvhich Alaska Airlines proposes to continue using onthis route, provides fi·eight, mail and cargo capacitythatothercarriers simply cannotprovide. Further. Alaska Airlines aircraft are equipped with Required Navigation Performance ·rechnology, which enables the airline to reliably access the airport during inclement weather, thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in turn, enabling people and products to dependably reach our various communities. Simply put, Alaska Airlines' service is critical to the economic wellbeing ofour communities and the City and Borough ofJuneau supports their application to provide Essential Air Service to Southeast Alaska. Sincerely,

Merrill Sanford Mayor 

### 155 So. Seward Street,Juneau, Alaska99801-1397
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

845 CA 12-01990 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF BAKER HALL, DOING BUSINESS AS BAKER VICTORY SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CITY OF LACKAWANNA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND CITY OF LACKAWANNA, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

BOUVIER PARTNERSHIP, LLP, BUFFALO (NORMAN E.S. GREENE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
DAMON MOREY LLP, CLARENCE (COREY A. AUERBACH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered July 25, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment granted in part the petition and annulled the determination of respondent City of Lackawanna Zoning Board of Appeals.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination of respondent City of Lackawanna Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) that a residential treatment facility (RTF) proposed by petitioner is not a permitted use in the mixed residential (MR) district in which petitioner sought to construct it. We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted the petition to that extent. Although “[t]he interpretation by a zoning board of its governing code is generally entitled to great deference by the courts . . . , an interpretation that runs counter to the clear wording of a [code] provision is given little weight” ( Matter of Emmerling v Town of Richmond Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 67 AD3d 1467, 1467-1468 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the ZBA’s determination that the proposed RTF is not permitted in an MR district is contrary to the clear wording of Lackawanna City Code (City Code) § 230-80 and the sections of the multiple residence law that are incorporated by reference therein ( see generally Matter of McGrath v Town of Amherst Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 94 AD3d 1522, 1523-1524, lv denied 19 NY3d 809).
Finally, we note that, inasmuch as petitioner did not take a-2- 845 CA 12-01990
cross appeal from the judgment, it is precluded from obtaining the affirmative relief it seeks ( see Millard v Alliance Laundry Sys., LLC , 28 AD3d 1145, 1148; see generally Hecht v City of New York , 60 NY2d 57, 61).

Entered: September 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Placeholder: Confidential Business Information item

Total Reclaim CBI Comment on 2-3-12

For more information please contact David Donaldson by phone at 202-343-9086 or by email at 

donaldson.david@epa.gov.
###### Editorial Note on [Subchapter A of Chapter VIII](/current/title-7/chapter-VIII/subchapter-A)

#### Authority:

[7 U.S.C. 71-87K](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/7/71), [1621-1627](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/7/1621).

###### Editorial Note on [Subchapter A of Chapter VIII](/current/title-7/chapter-VIII/subchapter-A)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at [84 FR 45645](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-45645), Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 801.6 Tolerances for moisture meters.

(a) The maintenance tolerances for Motomco 919 moisture meters used in performing official inspection services shall be:

(1) Headquarters standard meters:

| Moisture range | Tolerance | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Direct comparison | Sample exchange |
| Low | ±0.05 percent moisture, mean deviation from National standard moisture meter using Hard Red Winter wheat | |
| Mid | ±0.05 percent moisture, mean deviation from National standard moisture meter using Hard Red Winter wheat | |
| High | ±0.05 percent moisture, mean deviation from National standard moisture meter using Hard Red Winter wheat | |

(2) All other than Headquarters standard meters:

| Moisture range | Tolerance | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Direct comparison | Sample exchange |
| Low | ±0.15 percent moisture, mean deviation from standard moisture meter using Hard Red Winter wheat | ±0.20 percent moisture, mean deviation from standard moisture meter using Hard Red Winter wheat |
| Mid | ±0.10 percent moisture, mean deviation from standard moisture meter using Hard Red Winter wheat | ±0.15 percent moisture, mean deviation from standard moisture meter using Hard Red Winter wheat |
| High | ±0.15 percent moisture, mean deviation from standard moisture meter using Hard Red Winter wheat | ±0.20 percent moisture, mean deviation from standard moisture meter using Hard Red Winter wheat |

(b) The maintenance tolerances for GAC 2100 moisture meters used in performing official inspection services shall be:

(1) Headquarters standard meters. By direct comparison using mid-range Hard Red Winter wheat, ±0.05% mean deviation for the average of the Headquarters standard moisture meters.

(2) All other than Headquarters standard meters. By sample exchange using mid-range Hard Red Winter wheat, ±0.15% mean deviation from the standard meter.

[[63 FR 34554](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/63-FR-34554), June 25, 1998]
52.214-19 Contract Award-Sealed Bidding-Construction.       As prescribed in 14.201-6(m), insert the following provision:          Contract Award-Sealed Bidding-Construction (Aug 1996)                                       (a) 						            The Government will evaluate bids in response to this solicitation without discussions and will award a contract to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, considering only price and the price-related factors specified elsewhere in the solicitation.                                          (b) 						            The Government may reject any or all bids, and waive informalities or minor irregularities in bids received.                                          (c) 						            The Government may accept any item or combination of items, unless doing so is precluded by a restrictive limitation in the solicitation or the bid.                                          (d) 						            The Government may reject a bid as nonresponsive if the prices bid are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. A bid is materially unbalanced when it is based on prices significantly less than cost for some work and prices which are significantly overstated in relation to cost for other work, and if there is a reasonable doubt that the bid will result in the lowest overall cost to the Government even though it may be the low evaluated bid, or if it is so unbalanced as to be tantamount to allowing an advance payment.                                 (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.214 [Reserved]
§ 755.7 Transportation rates. ( a ) Payments may be based on fixed, set, or actual transportation rates. Fixed and set transportation rates will be established by FSA, based on available data for transportation costs for that commodity or input in the applicable State or insular region.
( b ) Fixed transportation rates will establish per unit transportation costs for each eligible commodity or input used to produce the eligible commodity.
( c ) Set transportation rates will be established for those transportation costs that are not on the FSA list of fixed rates and for which an actual rate cannot be documented. The set transportation rate will be set by FSA, based on available data of transportation costs for similar commodities and inputs.
( d ) Actual transportation rates will be determined based on supporting documentation.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 9, 2018

No. 04-17-00802-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.A.D-L., M.R.D-L., U.A.D-T, AND D.R.D-T, CHILDREN,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016PA00824

Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In this parental rights termination case, the first court-appointed attorney was allowed to 

withdraw because of a conflict. The trial court appointed new counsel, and we set Appellant’s 

brief due on March 8, 2018. 

The day before the brief was due, counsel moved this court to compel the trial court to 

supplement or correct the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c), (d); id. R. 34.6(d), (e). 

Counsel asserts that the order terminating Appellant’s parental rights lists as statutory grounds 

subsections (D), (E), (N), and (O) from section 161.001(b)(1) and section 161.003, but only 

subsections (D), (E), and (O) and section 161.003 are listed in the judge’s handwritten notes. See

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 161.001(b)(1), 161.003 (West Supp. 2017). 

“[A] judge’s notes are for his or her own convenience and form no part of the record.” In 

re A.W., 384 S.W.3d 872, 873 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.); accord In re L.H., No. 

04-13-00174-CV, 2013 WL 3804585, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 17, 2013, no pet.)

(per curiam) (mem. op.). The judge’s handwritten notes from October 16, 2017, lack the 

requisites of a final, appealable order; they are for the judge’s convenience only. See L.H., 2013 

WL 3804585, at *1; A.W., 384 S.W.3d at 873. The trial court’s signed, written order of 

November 17, 2017, controls. 

Appellant’s motion to correct or supplement the appellate record is DENIED. 

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s 

brief is due on March 28, 2018. Any further motion for extension of time to file the brief is 

discouraged. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2 (directing courts of appeals to dispose of parental 

rights termination suits “[w]ithin 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed”). 
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of March, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0807 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-191-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Replacement 3.0 $ 255.00 $ 255.00 220 $56,100.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $56,100

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3090 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3090

  To suspend temporarily the duty on M. Torres laser scribe machines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on M. Torres laser scribe machines.

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

SECTION 1. M. TORRES LASER SCRIBE MACHINES.

    (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:

      

``      9902.84.56        M. Torres laser scribe  Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           machines (provided                                                31/2009          ''
                           for in subheading                                                                   .
                           8456.10.80)..........

    (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>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2821 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2821

  To repeal the imposition of withholding on certain payments made to 
                    vendors by government entities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 17, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the imposition of withholding on certain payments made to 
                    vendors by government entities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Withholding Tax Relief Act of 
2006''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF IMPOSITION OF WITHHOLDING ON CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE TO 
              VENDORS BY GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.

    The amendment made by section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention 
and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is repealed and the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such amendment had never been 
enacted.
                                 <all>
```
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Academic AspirationDropout PreventionFamily InfluenceFemalesHigh School StudentsHigh SchoolsHispanic AmericansPeer InfluencePotential DropoutsSchool RoleSex RoleSexual HarassmentStudent AttitudesStudent School Relationship

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget