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

[106th Congress Public Law 268]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ268.106]

Public Law 106-268
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the Federal building located at 643 East Durango Boulevard 
   in San Antonio, Texas, as the ``Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training 
           Center''. <<NOTE: Sept. 22, 2000 -  [H.R. 1959]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 643 East Durango Boulevard in San 
Antonio, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``Adrian A. Spears 
Judicial Training Center''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Adrian A. Spears 
Judicial Training Center''.

    Approved September 22, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1959:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-688 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            June 27, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 13, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 429.36 Dehumidifiers. ( a ) *Sampling plan for selection of units for testing.* ( 1 ) The requirements of § 429.11 are applicable to dehumidifiers; and
( 2 ) For each basic model of dehumidifier selected for testing, a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that— ( i ) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of: ( A ) The mean of the sample, where: Or,
( B ) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.10, where: and
( ii ) Any represented value of the energy factor, integrated energy factor, or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of: ( A ) The mean of the sample, where: Or,
( B ) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 0.90, where:
( 3 ) The capacity of a basic model is the mean of the measured capacities for each tested unit of the basic model. Round the mean capacity value to two decimal places.
( 4 ) For whole-home dehumidifiers, the case volume of a basic model is the mean of the measured case volumes for each tested unit of the basic model. Round the mean case volume value to one decimal place.
( 5 ) Round the value of energy factor or integrated energy factor for a basic model to two decimal places.
( 6 ) Dehumidifiers distributed in commerce by the manufacturer with the ability to operate as both a portable and whole-home dehumidifier by means of installation or removal of an optional ducting kit, must be rated and certified under both configurations.
( b ) *Certification reports.* ( 1 ) The requirements of § 429.12 are applicable to dehumidifiers; and
( 2 ) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report must include the following public product-specific information: ( i ) For dehumidifiers tested in accordance with appendix X: The energy factor in liters per kilowatt hour (liters/kWh) and capacity in pints per day.
( ii ) For dehumidifiers tested in accordance with appendix X1: The integrated energy factor in liters per kilowatt hour (liters/kWh), capacity in pints per day, and for whole-home dehumidifiers, case volume in cubic feet.
[76 FR 12451, Mar. 7, 2011; 76 FR 24773, May 2, 2011, as amended at 77 FR 65977, Oct. 31, 2012; 80 FR 45824, July 31, 2015; 81 FR 38395, June 13, 2016]
225 So.2d 6

#### STATE of Louisiana v. William C. THOMPSON et al.

No. 50003.

July 21, 1969.

In re State of Louisiana applying for writ of certiorari and stay order.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Rudolph F. Becker, Jr., Judge of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 14th day of November, 1968, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

*513It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondents through their attorneys shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

It is further ordered that, in the meantime and until the further orders of this court all proceedings against the relator in said Criminal District Court shall be stayed and suspended.

Writ granted with stay order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial data extracted from the Registrant's
unaudited consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarter ended
November 1, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements and the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                                 123
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          677
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                         13,355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    15,138
<PP&E>                                              26,086
<DEPRECIATION>                                      21,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      19,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               17,717
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            13,013
<OTHER-SE>                                        (13,588)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        19,683
<SALES>                                             15,238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    15,238
<CGS>                                               11,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       15,040
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     124
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         74
<INCOME-TAX>                                            30
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     44
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                            44
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
§ 25.13 Maintenance of records. ( a ) Each licensee or organization employing individuals approved for personnel security access authorization under this part, shall maintain records as prescribed within the part. These records are subject to review and inspection by CSA representatives during security reviews.
( b ) Each record required by this part must be legible throughout the retention period specified by each Commission regulation. The record may be the original or a reproduced copy or a microform provided that the copy or microform is authenticated by authorized personnel and that the microform is capable of producing a clear copy throughout the required retention period. The record may also be stored in electronic media with the capability for producing legible, accurate, and complete records during the required retention period. Records such as letters, drawings, specifications, must include all pertinent information such as stamps, initials, and signatures. The licensee shall maintain adequate safeguards against tampering with and loss of records.
[45 FR 14481, Mar. 5, 1980, as amended at 53 FR 19245, May 27, 1988; 62 FR 17687, Apr. 11, 1997]
PGI 3.104-4 Statutory and related prohibitions, restrictions, and         requirements.     (a) Contractor and Agency personnel that require NDAs due to their assigned activities             will provide copies of their NDA to the contracting officer. This copy will become part             of the contract.         (b) Contractor and Agency personnel that frequently participate in activities that             require access to source selection information, CUI, or any other protected information             should sign a blanket NDA at the beginning of the fiscal year that is in effect for that             year. These personnel will provide a copy of their blanket NDA to each contracting             officer that requires their participation/expertise throughout the fiscal year. The             contracting officer will sign the copy and keep for the contract file. **Parent topic:** PGI SUBPART 3.1 – SAFEGUARDS
#### § 835.1303 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 222 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 222

Expressing support for designation of May 5, 2017, as ``National Day of 
      Awareness for Missing and Murdered Native Women and Girls''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2017

 Mr. Chaffetz (for himself, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. O'Halleran, Mr. Young of 
 Alaska, and Mr. Pearce) submitted the following resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for designation of May 5, 2017, as ``National Day of 
      Awareness for Missing and Murdered Native Women and Girls''.

Whereas, according to a study commissioned by the Department of Justice, in some 
        tribal communities, American Indian women face murder rates that are 
        more than 10 times the national average;
Whereas, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, homicide 
        was the third leading cause of death among American Indian and Alaska 
        Native women between 10 and 24 years of age and the fifth leading cause 
        of death for American Indian and Alaska Native women between 25 and 34 
        years of age;
Whereas little data exist on the number of missing American Indian and Alaska 
        Native women in the United States;
Whereas, on July 5, 2013, Hanna Harris, a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, 
        was reported missing by her family in Lame Deer, Montana;
Whereas the body of Hanna Harris was found 5 days after she went missing;
Whereas Hanna Harris was determined to have been raped and murdered and the 
        individuals accused of committing those crimes were convicted;
Whereas the case of Hanna Harris is only one example of many similar cases; and
Whereas Hanna Harris was born on May 5, 1992: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of ``National Day of Awareness 
        for Missing and Murdered Native Women and Girls''; and
            (2) calls on the people of the United States and interested 
        groups to--
                    (A) commemorate the lives of missing and murdered 
                American Indian and Alaska Native women whose cases are 
                documented and undocumented in public records and the 
                media; and
                    (B) demonstrate solidarity with the families of 
                victims in light of these tragedies.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of BNP Residential Properties, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D.
Scott Wilkerson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




   /s/ D. Scott Wilkerson
D. Scott Wilkerson
President and Chief Executive Officer

August 5, 2005


                                       43
<PAGE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Medical Records Retrieval, Inc., Doing Business as Kamara Supplies, as Assignee of Sigua Juan, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt, Esq.), for appellant.Law Offices of Peter C. Merani, P.C. (Josh Youngman, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered January 30, 2015. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.</p><p>Plaintiff's arguments in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment are not properly before this court as they are being raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider them (<a href="../2011/2011_07610.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc.</i>, 88 AD3d 963</a> [2011]; <a href="../2004/2004_09598.htm" target="_blank"><i>Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen</i>, 13 AD3d 579</a> [2004]; <a href="../2015/2015_51219.htm" target="_blank"><i>Mind &amp; Body Acupuncture, P.C. v Elrac, Inc.</i>, 48 Misc 3d 139</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51219[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, plaintiff has demonstrated no basis to disturb the order which granted defendant's motion and denied plaintiff's cross motion.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### § 710.33 Time frames.

Statements of time established for processing aspects of a case under this part are the agency's desired time frames in implementing the procedures set forth in this part. However, failure to meet the time frames shall have no impact upon the final disposition of an access authorization by a Manager, Administrative Judge, the Appeal Panel, or the Secretary, and shall confer no procedural or substantive rights upon an individual whose access authorization eligibility is being considered.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 717 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 164
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 717

                          [Report No. 109-415]

    Directing the Secretary of Commerce to transmit to the House of 
Representatives a copy of a workforce globalization final draft report 
               produced by the Technology Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2006

  Mr. Gordon (for himself, Mr. Costello, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
  Texas, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Wu, Mr. 
   Honda, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Mr. 
    Lipinski, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Baird, Mr. 
Matheson, Mr. Costa, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Moore of 
Kansas, and Mr. Carnahan) submitted the following resolution; which was 
                  referred to the Committee on Science

                             April 7, 2006

Additional sponsors: Mr. McDermott, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Ryan 
                         of Ohio, and Mr. Evans

                             April 7, 2006

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Directing the Secretary of Commerce to transmit to the House of 
Representatives a copy of a workforce globalization final draft report 
               produced by the Technology Administration.

    Resolved, That the Secretary of Commerce is directed to transmit to 
the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of 
the adoption of this resolution, a copy of the final draft report, 
produced by the professional staff of the Technology Administration, 
entitled: ``Six-Month Assessment of Workforce Globalization In Certain 
Knowledge-Based Industries''.
                                                 House Calendar No. 164

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 717

                          [Report No. 109-415]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

    Directing the Secretary of Commerce to transmit to the House of 
Representatives a copy of a workforce globalization final draft report 
               produced by the Technology Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 7, 2006

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3985

___________ Paul W. Oldham, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of the * Army, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 6, 1998 Filed: February 10, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Paul W. Oldham appeals the district court & s grant of judgment to Togo D. West, 1 Jr., theSecretary of the Army, after a seven-day bench trial in Oldham & s employment discrimination action.-2-

We have carefully reviewed the record, including the trial transcript. We find no clear error in the district court & s factual findings, as those f indings were based on the decision to credit the defense witnesses, each of whom told a “ facially plausible story.” See Plann ed Parenthood of Greater Iowa, Inc. v. Atchison , 126 F.3d 1042, 1048 (8th Cir. 199 7) (standard of review); Northgate Homes, Inc. v. City of Dayton , 126 F.3 d 1095, 11 01 (8th Cir. 1997) (where trial court & s factual findings “are based upon it s decision to credit the testimony of a witness or witnesses, each of whom has told a coherent and facially plausible story which is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, the trial court & s findings, unless internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clearl y erroneous”; “[w]here thereare two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder & s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous” (internal quotations omitted)).
We further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excludin g certain hearsay testimony of an unavailable witness, as that testimony was given at a fact-finding hearing where the factfinde r posed questions and defendant had neither an opportunity nor the motive to develop testimony relevant to the issues in this case. See Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1 ) ; McKnight ex rel. Ludwig v. Johnson Controls, Inc. , 36 F.3d 1396, 1410 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review for Rule 804(b)(1) decision). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### HOROWITZ, Respondent, v. EIDT, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Moses Horowitz; an infant, etc., against John C. Eidt.

C. S. Petrasch, of New York City, for appellant.

J. L. Gibson, of Brooklyn, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000812076
<NAME>                        TOPPS
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-26-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-29-1999
<CASH>                                          50,439
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,250
<INVENTORY>                                     14,709
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,305
<PP&E>                                          13,548
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 184,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,055
<BONDS>                                         10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           475
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   184,312
<SALES>                                         84,941
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,591
<CGS>                                           47,194
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    87
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,707
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,440
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,267
<EPS-BASIC>                                     .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .20




</TABLE>
#### Archie L. Breese, Appellee, v. Guy A. Richardson et al., Trading as Chicago Surface Lines, Appellants.

Gen. No. 41,132.

opinion filed October 1, 1940;

rehearing denied October 15, 1940.

Frank L. Kriete, Charles E. Green and Arthur J. Donovan, for appellants; John R. Guilliams, of counsel; William A. Redmond, for appellee; John Knox, of counsel.

Opinion by

Justice Matchett.

“Not to be published in full.’ ’