alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
APests have enemies, too!

phids are tiny insect pests. They suck 

Aphids and LadybugsNatural enemies that gobble up 

the sap from plants— vegetables, crops, aphids are lacewings, assassin bugs, flowers, and trees. They take away the wasps, spiders, and chickadees. 

plant’s nutrients, and they can give the plant But ladybugs (ladybird beetles) 

plant with the sweet, sticky juices they make. are the champion aphid eaters. 

Ladybugs look the same on both sides. Draw the rest of this ladybug’s body. 

Ladybugs won’t harm any of your plants, but they eat many pests that do! Let ladybugs do their work! 

For more on ladybugs, visit the National Wildlife Federation's Back Yard Wildlife Habitat Program: http://www.nwf.org/backyardwildlifehabitat/goodbugsbad 

viruses. Aphids attract even more pests to the 

bugs.cfm. Click on the picture of ladybugs about half way down the screen. 

Tip for Grown-ups: When fighting spider mites or aphids, go for the least toxic ways. insects (enemies of pests) such as ladybugs. 

aphids off plants with your garden hose. 

16 

You can buy beneficial 

You can also use insecticidal soaps or wash 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 2003 

http://www.nwf.org/backyardwildlifehabitat/goodbugsbad
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Alyeska Boiler Reconsideration Request
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 853 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 853

    To prohibit Federal funding to entities that do not certify the 
 entities will not perform, or provide any funding to any other entity 
                      that performs, an abortion.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2017

  Mrs. Black introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit Federal funding to entities that do not certify the 
 entities will not perform, or provide any funding to any other entity 
                      that performs, an abortion.

    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 ``Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ABORTION.

    (a) Prohibition.--No Federal funds may be provided (directly or 
indirectly, including through contract or subcontract) to an entity 
unless the entity certifies that, during the period for which such 
funds are provided, the entity will not perform, and will not provide 
any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply with respect to an 
abortion where--
            (1) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or
            (2) a physician certifies that the woman suffers from a 
        physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that 
        would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is 
        performed, including a life-threatening physical condition 
        caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
    (c) Hospitals.--Subsection (a) does not apply with respect to a 
hospital, so long as such hospital does not, during the period for 
which funds described in subsection (a) are provided to such hospital, 
provide funds to any non-hospital entity that performs an abortion 
(other than an abortion described in subsection (b)).
    (d) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``entity'' means the entire legal entity, 
        including any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is 
        under common control with such entity.
            (2) The term ``hospital'' has the meaning given to such 
        term in section 1861(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
        1395x(e)).
                                 <all>
```
§ 429.71 Maintenance of records. ( a ) The manufacturer of any covered product or covered equipment shall establish, maintain, and retain the records of certification reports, of the underlying test data for all certification testing, and of any other testing conducted to satisfy the requirements of this part, part 430, and part 431. Any manufacturer who chooses to use an alternative method for determining energy efficiency or energy use in accordance with § 429.70 must retain the records required by that section, any other records of any testing performed to support the use of the alternative method, and any certifications required by that section, on file for review by DOE for two years following the discontinuance of all models or combinations whose ratings were based on the alternative method.
( b ) Such records shall be organized and indexed in a fashion that makes them readily accessible for review by DOE upon request.
( c ) The records shall be retained by the manufacturer for a period of two years from the date that the manufacturer or third party submitter has notified DOE that the model has been discontinued in commerce.
( d ) When considering if a pump is subject to energy conservation standards under part 431 of this chapter, DOE may need to determine if a pump was designed and constructed to the requirements set forth in Military Specifications: MIL-P-17639F, MIL-P-17881D, MIL-P-17840C, MIL-P-18682D, or MIL-P-18472G. In this case, a manufacturer must provide DOE with copies of the original design and test data that were submitted to appropriate design review agencies, as required by MIL-P-17639F, MIL-P-17881D, MIL-P-17840C, MIL-P-18682D, or MIL-P-18472G. Military specifications and standards are available for review at *http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS*.
( e ) When considering if a compressor is subject to energy conservation standards under part 431, DOE may need to determine if a compressors was designed and tested to the requirements set forth in the American Petroleum Institute standard 619, “Rotary-Type Positive-Displacement Compressors for Petroleum, Petrochemical, and Natural Gas Industries” (API 619). In this case, DOE may request that a manufacturer provide DOE with copies of the original requirements and test data that were submitted to the purchaser of the compressor, in accordance with API 619.
[76 FR 12451, Mar. 7, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 4145, Jan. 25, 2016; 85 FR 1591, Jan. 10, 2020]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

BUDDY GILL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv718-MHT

) (WO) 

SORRELLS FUNERAL HOME, )

INC., and TERRY G. )

SORRELLS, )

)

Defendants. )

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the stipulation for dismissal (Doc. No.

20), it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court

that this cause is dismissed in its entirety with

prejudice, with the parties to bear their own costs.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this

document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant

to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE, this the 21st day of February, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00718-MHT-SRW Document 21 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-2 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-2 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-2 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-2 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-3 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-3 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-3 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-3 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-3 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-3 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-3 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-3 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-3 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-3 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 10 of 10
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-4 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-4 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-5 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-5 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-7 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-7 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00801-MEF-VPM Document 1-7 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 3 of 3
#### § 205.321 Time of filing.

Pursuant to the DOE's responsibility under the National Environmental Policy Act, the DOE must make an environmental determination of the proposed action. If, as a result of this determination, an environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared, the permit processing time normally will be 18-24 months. If no environmental impact statement is required, then a six-month processing time normally would be sufficient.
§ 501.120 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This subpart sets forth the procedures for the request and issuance of a stay of a rule or order or other requirement issued or imposed by OFE or these regulations but does not apply to the mandatory stays provided for in sections 202(b) and 301(a) of FUA. The application for a stay under this subpart will only be considered incidental to a proceeding on a request for modification or rescission of a final prohibition rule or order.
( b ) The petitioner must comply with all final and effective OFE orders, regulations, rulings, and generally applicable requirements unless a petition for a stay is granted or is applicable under FUA.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

FARMERS TELECOMMUNICATIONS )

COOPERATIVE, INC., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06CV790-WC

 )

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration ofthe Unopposed Motion to Extend Time for Filing Answers (Doc. #10),

filed by the plaintiff, Farmers Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. on December 15, 2006, and for

good cause, it is 

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The defendants shall file their answer or other

responsive pleadings in response to the plaintiff's complaint on or before January 29, 2007.

Done this 19th day of December, 2006.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 12 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Steven C. Bierman, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2012-D (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                      Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                      I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                      All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.

 

March 27, 2014

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/   Steven C. Bierman                                          |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Steven   C. Bierman                                              |
|   | Title: | President   (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |

 

----
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 12 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the 

enhancement of unity in America. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Ms. JACKSON LEE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 

regarding the enhancement of unity in America. 

Whereas, on June 18, 2015, the United States Supreme 

Court correctly concluded in Walker III v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. (No. 14–144; 

576 U.S., 135 S. Ct. 2239) that messages on State license plates constitute ‘‘government speech’’, not private 

speech protected by the First Amendment; 

Whereas the Court also held that it is within the authority 

of a State such as Texas to reject messages on Stateissued license plates, such as a depiction of the Confederate battle flag, that offend the sensibilities of its citizens; 

Whereas divisive symbols, license plates, specialty license 

plates, replicas, and flags on public buildings or governVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:36 Jan 10, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR12.IH HR12

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 12 IH 

ment property, which constitute ‘‘government speech’’, 

convey the vestiges of the history of slavery that has divided the United States; 

Whereas the role of government is to promote equal protection under the Constitution and combat fear, oppression, 

and intimidation; 

Whereas these divisive symbols have historically targeted and 

perpetuated fear, oppression, and intimidation of certain 

groups of Americans; 

Whereas the continued existence of these divisive symbols as 

‘‘government speech’’ is also a denial of equal protection 

under the law; 

Whereas the United States can only be a perfect union where 

all are and feel equally protected under the law; and 

Whereas equal protection under the law promotes a more perfect union, fairness, tolerance, peace, and a sense of community oneness, all unalienable rights enshrined in the 

Constitution: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the United States can achieve a more 

3 perfect union— 

4 (1) through avoidance of ‘‘government speech’’, 

5 as the State of Texas did in Walker III v. Texas Di6 vision, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., which 

7 promotes or displays symbols, signs, and vestiges of 

8 racism, oppression, and intimidation in the States, 

9 localities, and territories; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 12 IH 

1 (2) by immediately abating the use of ‘‘govern2 ment speech’’ through signs, actions, and words that 

3 promote division and tear at the fabric of the Amer4 ican society; and 

5 (3) by promoting tolerance and unity by taking 

6 actions to ensure that ‘‘government speech’’ does not 

7 foster division, disharmony, intolerance through gov8 ernment-issued or sponsored flags, signs, images, or 

9 other symbols whether displayed in public or private. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

#### § 4.315 Burden of proof.

The burden of proving that an age distinction or other action falls within the exceptions outlined in §§ 4.313 and 4.314 is on the recipient of Federal financial assistance.
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 2.111 Prohibition of sex discrimination.

No person shall on the grounds of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied a license, standard design approval, or petition for rulemaking (including a design certification), be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity carried on or receiving Federal assistance under the Act or the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

[72 FR 49474, Aug. 28, 2007]
PGI 233.210 Contracting officer's authority.

When it would be helpful in reviewing the current claim, the contracting officer should get

information on claims previously filed by the contractor. Such information may provide a historical

perspective of the nature and accuracy of the claims submitted by the contractor and how they were

settled. Potential sources for the information include the contracting activity’s office of legal

counsel, other contracting activities, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

Parent topic: PGI 233.2 -DISPUTES AND APPEALS
# SUBCHAPTER F—SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF CONTRACTING   

- PART 734—MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION 
- PART 736—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS 
- PART 737 [RESERVED] 

- PART 734—MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION    - 734.002-70   USAID policy.
- PART 736—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS    - Subpart 736.5—Contract Clauses     - 736.570   Disability standards in construction contracts.
  - Subpart 736.6—Architect-Engineer Services     - 736.602-2   Evaluation boards.
    - 736.602-3   Evaluation board functions.
    - 736.602-4   Selection authority.
    - 736.602-5   Short selection process for procurements not to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.
    - 736.603   [Reserved]
    - 736.605   Government cost estimate for architect-engineer work.
- PART 737 [RESERVED]
SUBCHAPTER E - GENERAL CONTRACTING

REQUIREMENTS

PART 2027 - PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS

PART 2030 - COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

PART 2031 - CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

PART 2032 - CONTRACT FINANCING

PART 2033 - PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS

PART 2027 - PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS

Subpart 2027.3 - Patent Rights Under Government Contracts

2027.305-3 Follow-up by Government.

2027.305-70 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

PART 2030 - COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

Subpart 2030.2 - CAS Program Requirements

2030.201-5 Waiver.

PART 2031 - CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

Subpart 2031.1 - Applicability

2031.109-70 Contract clauses.

PART 2032 - CONTRACT FINANCING

Subpart 2032.4 - Advance Payments for Non-Commercial Items

2032.402 General.

PART 2033 - PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS

Subpart 2033.1 - Protests

2033.103 Protests to the agency.

Subpart 2033.2 - Disputes and Appeals

2033.204 Policy.

2033.211 Contract Claims - Contracting officer's decision.

2033.215 Contract clause.
2007-1911.

#### State v. Lindsay.

Logan App. No. 8-06-24, 2007-Ohio-4490. On motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment. Motion denied.

Lundberg Stratton and O’Connor, JJ., dissent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

September 6, 2006

NOTICE OF DOCUMENT STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD 

To: All Counsel of Record

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: James Kuczmaski, et al. v. US FoodService

Case Number: #2:06-cv-00731-MHT

Referenced Pleading: Document #5

 Alias summons returned executed

The referenced pleading was filed erroneously on 9/1/2006. The alias summons has not been

issued by the court. 

 

Therefore, Document #5 is STRICKEN from the record and the parties are instructed to

disregard the entry of this pleading on the court’s docket.

Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 1
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 793 

To amend the National Security Act of 1947 to provide for additional requirements relating to the regular attendees of meetings of the National 

Security Council and bodies thereof. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 

Mr. LARSEN of Washington (for himself, Mr. AGUILAR, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. 

CONNOLLY, Mr. COOPER, Mr. COURTNEY, Ms. DELBENE, Mr. 

GARAMENDI, Mr. HECK, Mr. KILMER, Mr. O’HALLERAN, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. WALZ, and Mr. MCGOVERN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition 

to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the National Security Act of 1947 to provide 

for additional requirements relating to the regular 

attendees of meetings of the National Security Council 

and bodies thereof. 

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 ‘‘Ensuring Sound Mili5 tary and Intelligence Advice Act of 2017’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 793 IH

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF REGULAR ATTENDEES OF MEET2 INGS OF NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND 

3 BODIES THEREOF. 

4 Section 101(c)(2) of the National Security Act of 

5 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3021) is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new sentence: ‘‘If any individual whose re7 sponsibilities are primarily political is designated as a reg8 ular attendee of meetings of the National Security Council 

9 or of any body of the National Security Council, including 

10 the Principals Committee, then the Director of National 

11 Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

12 shall also be designated as regular attendees of such Coun13 cil or body.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
Order entered February 23, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00421-CR

ANTONIO ALEX ANGULOVILLALTA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F19-00739-P

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

We abated the appeal by order dated January 12, 2021 because appellant’s 

brief was past due and we had not received a motion to extend time or other 

communication regarding the brief. On February 12, 2021, counsel tendered a brief 

and filed a motion to extend time to file the brief.
We VACATE our January 12, 2021 order to the extent it required a hearing 

and findings and recommendations. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER 

the brief received with the motion filed as of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Rachel 

Jones, Presiding Judge, 203rd Judicial District Court; to J. Daniel Oliphant, Jr.; and 

to the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, Appellate Division.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE