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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 341 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 28, 2005.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3057) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, 
and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for 
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: 
beginning with ``or'' on page 113, line 26, through page 114, line 10. Where 
points of order are waived against part of a section, points of order against a 
provision in another part of such section may be made only against such 
provision and not against the entire section. During consideration of the bill 
for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused 
it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a 
recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### In the Matter of Mitchell Kalwasinski, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[813 NYS2d 683]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

*1105Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating numerous prison disciplinary rules. Since the commencement of the proceeding, the Attorney General has advised that the determination has been administratively reversed and all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Lamage v Goord,*21 AD3d 633 [2005]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
2453.000 Scope of part.       This part prescribes Agency forms for use in acquisition and contains requirements and information generally applicable to the forms.    **Parent topic:** PART 2453 - FORMS
PGI 225.772-3 Procedures.

(1) Forward any information required in accordance with 225.772-3 or requests for an exception to

DPC/CP via email at osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.asda-dp-c-contractpolicy@mail.mil.

(2) Consult with DPC/CP, as required in accordance with 225.772-3(c)(2), via email at

osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.asda-dp-c-contractpolicy@mail.mil.

Parent topic: PGI 225.772 Prohibition on acquisition of certain foreign commercial satellite

services.
Webinar Attendees: Negotiated Rulemaking for Distribution Transformers Low-Voltage Working Group Meeting

Meeting Date: Friday, October 14, 2011

Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Phone Fax Email

Cohen, Daniel Assistant General Counsel 

for Legislation and 

Regulatory Law

US Department of Energy (DOE) 1000 Independence Avenue Washington DC 20585 202-586-9523 202-586-5870 Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov

Corel, Dale Sr. Design Engineer NEMA 9377 W. Higgins Rd. Rosemont IL 60018 N/A N/A dale.corel@emerson.com

Freeman, Jeremiah Energy Analyst New West Technologies, LLC 1000 Independence Ave, 

SW

Washington DC 20585 N/A N/A jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov

Greeson, Robert S. Sr. Electrical Design 

Engineer P.E.

Federal Pacific P.O. Box 8200 Bristol VA 24203-8200 276-669-4084 

276-645-8210

276-669-1869 rgreeson@electro-mechanical.com

rgreeson@federalpacific.com

Harden, Kenneth Sr Electrical Engineer Schneider Electric 6 Commercial Rd Huntington IN 46750 N/A N/A kenneth.harden@schneider-electric.com

Iman, Mike Vice President of 

Engineering

MGM Transformer Company 5701 Smithway Commerce CA 90040 N/A N/A miman@mgmtransformer.com

Kennedy, Chad Industry Standards 

Manager

Schneider Electric 8821 Garners Ferry Road Hopkins SC 29061 N/A N/A chad.kennedy@schneider-electric.com

Ling, Philip VP Technology Powersmiths International Corp 10 Devon Road Brampton ON L6T5B5 N/A N/A pling@powersmiths.com

Lyke, Richard F. Principal Engineer, Product 

Development & 

Applications Engineering

AK Steel Corporation 705 Curtis Street Middletown OH 45043-0001 513-425-5709 513-425-5866 richard.lyke@aksteel.com

Nardotti, Matthew Consultant / Energy 

Practice

Navigant Consulting 1801 K Street NW

Suite 500

Washington DC 20006-1301 202-973-2400

202-481-7546

202-973-2401 matthew.nardotti@navigantconsulting.com

Patzner, Thomas Marketing Specialist Square D / Schneider Electric 1010 Airpark Center Drive Nashville TN 37217 615-844-8536 N/A thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com

Rosenfeld, Arthur H. Distinguished Scientist 

Emeritus

Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory

160 Southampton Avenue Berkley CA 94707 916-495-2227 510-486-5454 AHRosenfeld@lbl.gov

artrosenfeld@gmail.com
§ 13.29 Sanctions. ( a ) The ALJ may sanction a person, including any party or representative for— ( 1 ) Failing to comply with an order, rule, or procedure governing the proceeding;
( 2 ) Failing to prosecute or defend an action; or
( 3 ) Engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly, or fair conduct of the hearing.
( b ) Any such sanction, including but not limited to those listed in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section, shall reasonably relate to the severity and nature of the failure or misconduct.
( c ) When a party fails to comply with an order, including an order for taking a deposition, the production of evidence within the party's control, or a request for admission, the ALJ may— ( 1 ) Draw an inference in favor of the requesting party with regard to the information sought;
( 2 ) In the case of requests for admission, deem each matter of which an admission is requested to be admitted;
( 3 ) Prohibit the party failing to comply with such order from introducing evidence concerning, or otherwise relying upon testimony relating to the information sought; and
( 4 ) Strike any part of the pleadings or other submissions of the party failing to comply with such request.
( d ) If a party fails to prosecute or defend an action under this part commenced by service of a notice of hearing, the ALJ may dismiss the action or may issue an initial decision imposing penalties and assessments.
( e ) The ALJ may refuse to consider any motion, request, response, brief or other document which is not filed in a timely fashion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S 10-QSB AS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,771,928
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,574,432
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (399,944)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,135,433
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,777,115
<PP&E>                                       4,535,356
<DEPRECIATION>                              (3,356,527)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,773,973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,127,879
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       389,693
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,148,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,773,973
<SALES>                                      4,487,286
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,487,286
<CGS>                                        2,287,877
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,287,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,369,991
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                56,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,170,582)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (422,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (748,582)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (748,582)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.19)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6288

LINDSEY PHILLIPS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; YORK COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3:05-cv-03561-PMD) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 6, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lindsey Phillips, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lindsey Phillips, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Phillips that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Phillips failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Phillips has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
#### In re SPORMAN’S WILL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1914.)

In the matter of the will of Ernst Sporman, deceased.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 406 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 406

Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the first official meeting between 
 soldiers of the United States Army and soldiers of the Soviet Army at 
   Torgau, Germany, and commending the excellent service of the 69th 
    Infantry Division of the United States Army during World War II.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2005

 Mr. English of Pennsylvania submitted the following resolution; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the first official meeting between 
 soldiers of the United States Army and soldiers of the Soviet Army at 
   Torgau, Germany, and commending the excellent service of the 69th 
    Infantry Division of the United States Army during World War II.

Whereas World War II was fought in Europe, Asia, and Africa from 1939 to 1945, 
        and involved, among others, the Allied armies of the United States and 
        the Soviet Union in conflict with the Axis Powers of Nazi Germany and 
        Imperial Japan;
Whereas the defeat of Nazi Germany was critical to the spread of world peace, 
        human rights, and democracy;
Whereas members of the United States Armed Forces fought with great bravery 
        across much of Western Europe, from the beaches of Normandy, France, to 
        the center of Nazi power in Germany;
Whereas the Soviet Armed Forces fought with great bravery across much of Russia 
        and Eastern Europe, from Moscow to the center of Nazi power in Germany;
Whereas the military defeat of Nazi Germany was contingent upon the ability of 
        the Allied forces to advance upon Germany from both the Eastern and 
        Western fronts in Europe;
Whereas the first official meeting between these two Allied forces occurred when 
        members of the 273rd Infantry Regiment of the 69th Infantry Division of 
        the United States Army reached members of the 58th Guards Infantry 
        Division of the Soviet Army on April 25, 1945, at Torgau, Germany; and
Whereas surviving members of the 69th Infantry Division and its attached units 
        will celebrate the 60th anniversary of their meeting with Soviet forces 
        on August 27, 2005, during their 58th annual reunion in Louisville, 
        Kentucky: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the 60th anniversary of the first official 
        meeting between soldiers of the United States Army and soldiers 
        of the Soviet Army at Torgau, Germany, on April 25, 1945; and
            (2) commends the excellent service that the officers and 
        enlisted members of the 69th Infantry Division of the United 
        States Army provided during World War II.
                                 <all>
```
#### Laurence F. De Lucia et al., Appellants, v. Central School District No. 1, Town of Colonie, Respondent.

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal by plaintiffs (1) from judgments of the Supreme Court entered upon verdicts of no cause of action and (2) from an order of said court which denied plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdicts. Upon the evidence, the jury was entirely warranted in resolving against the plaintiffs the issue whether the automobile in which plaintiffs were operator and passenger, respectively, was backed from a driveway into the defendant’s school bus as the bus was proceeding on the paved portion of Sand Creek Road or whether the school bus, after being stopped on an intersecting highway for a red light, made a wide left turn onto Sand Creek Road, passed onto the right shoulder and collided there with the plaintiffs’ car. We perceive no basis to interfere with the jury’s determination of the credibility of the witness Vigars. If there was error in the court’s charge that plaintiffs lost time from work but did not lose wages it was not prejudicial, under the circumstances. Order and judgments affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court; Aulisi, J., not voting.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3524

___________

Terry Lynn Harris, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

St. Charles County Commissioner; St. * Appeal from the United States

Charles County Sheriff; Tony Tipton, * District Court for the Eastern

Officer, Badge No. 411; Phillip * District of Missouri.

Adams, Officer, Badge No. 484; *

Unknown Simmon, Officer, Badge * [UNPUBLISHED]

No. 447; Robert Smith, Officer, *

Badge No. 471; Unknown Seager, *

Officer, Badge No. 472; R. Gatewood, *

Officer, Badge No. Unknown, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 22, 2000

Filed: June 29, 2000 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Terry Lynn Harris appeals the district court's denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action, alleging various correctional officers violated his Eighth Amendment rights by
-2-

failing timely to administer medication and by using unreasonable force constituting

cruel and unusual punishment. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties'

briefs, we conclude extended discussion is not required and affirm for the reasons

stated in the district court's thorough opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.134 Monitoring and testing waste packages. ( a ) A program must be established at the geologic repository operations area for monitoring the condition of the waste packages. Waste packages chosen for the program must be representative of those to be emplaced in the underground facility.
( b ) Consistent with safe operation at the geologic repository operations area, the environment of the waste packages selected for the waste package monitoring program must be representative of the environment in which the wastes are to be emplaced.
( c ) The waste package monitoring program must include laboratory experiments that focus on the internal condition of the waste packages. To the extent practical, the environment experienced by the emplaced waste packages within the underground facility during the waste package monitoring program must be duplicated in the laboratory experiments.
( d ) The waste package monitoring program must continue as long as practical up to the time of permanent closure.
H. Res. 457

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

October 17, 2005

Whereas chemistry is at the core of every technology we benefit from today; 

Whereas the power of the chemical sciences is what they create as a whole; an enabling infrastructure that delivers 

the foods, fuels, medicines, and materials that are the 

hallmarks of modern life; 

Whereas the contributions of chemical scientists and engineers are central to technological progress and to the 

health of many industries, including the chemical, pharmaceutical, electronics, agricultural, automotive, and 

aerospace sectors, and these contributions boost economic 

growth, create new jobs, and improve our health and 

standard of living; 

Whereas the American Chemical Society, the world’s largest 

scientific society, founded National Chemistry Week in 

1987 to educate the public, particularly elementary and 

secondary school children, about the role of chemistry in 

society and to enhance students’ appreciation of the 

chemical sciences; 

Whereas National Chemistry Week is a community-based 

public awareness campaign conducted by more than 
2

•HRES 457 EH 

10,000 volunteers in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; 

Whereas National Chemistry Week volunteers from United 

States industry, government, secondary schools, and institutions of higher education reach and educate millions 

of children through hands-on science activities in local 

schools, libraries, and museums; 

Whereas the theme of National Chemistry Week in 2005, 

‘‘The Joy of Toys’’, was chosen to emphasize the chemistry involved in the creation and production of toys and 

the role that chemistry has played in new material development that has helped to make toys safer and more durable; and 

Whereas in recognition of National Chemistry Week, volunteers across the United States will teach children about 

the chemistry involved with the materials, function, and 

properties of toys during the week beginning October 16, 

2005: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) recognizes that the important contributions of 

chemical scientists and engineers to technological 

progress and the health of many industries have created 

new jobs, boosted economic growth, and improved the 

Nation’s health and standard of living; 

(2) supports the goals of National Chemistry Week 

as founded by the American Chemical Society; and 

(3) encourages the people of the United States to 

observe National Chemistry Week with appropriate recognition, ceremonies, activities, and programs to dem-
3

•HRES 457 EH 

onstrate the importance of chemistry to our everyday 

lives.

Passed the House of Representatives October 17, 

2005. 

Attest:

Clerk.
2007-2170.

#### Hytower v. Beightler.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Eddie Hytower. Sua sponte, cause dismissed. Motion to compel discovery denied as moot.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
#### HART et al., Appellants, v. LANCASTER SEA BEACH IMPROVEMENT CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Henry Hart and others against the Lancaster Sea Beach Improvement Company.

PER CURIAM.

Motion denied, without costs, on condition that the defendant stipulate,, within five days after the entry of the order herein, that upon the trial of the action plaintiffs’ right to injunctive relief, if any, shall not be prejudiced by reason of any acts of the defendant committed during the pendency of this action.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Steven Lawrence RILEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-2426.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2000.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 98-00288-CR-T-26E);

Richard A. Lazzara, Judge.

Before TJOFLAT, COX and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

We sua sponte grant rehearing in this appeal. Our opinion is published at 211 F.3d 1207 (11th

Cir.2000).

After we filed our opinion in this appeal, but before the mandate issued, the Supreme Court decided

Castillo v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 120 S.Ct. 2090, 147 L.Ed.2d 94 (2000), which casts doubt on the

correctness of our ruling rejecting Riley's challenge to the enhanced penalty the district court imposed on him

under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We accordingly vacate the portion of our prior opinion addressing the § 924(c)

sentencing issue and direct the clerk to schedule the appeal for oral argument on that issue before a regular

oral-argument panel.

REHEARING GRANTED; OPINION VACATED IN PART; ORAL ARGUMENT GRANTED

IN PART.