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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 497 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 497

   Urging the Vice President and the Cabinet to fulfill their duties 
 pursuant to Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 18, 2017

 Ms. Lofgren submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Urging the Vice President and the Cabinet to fulfill their duties 
 pursuant to Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Whereas, Section 4 of the 25th Amendment states that ``Whenever the Vice 
        President and a majority of either the principal officers of the 
        executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law 
        provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the 
        Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that 
        the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his 
        office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and 
        duties of the office as Acting President''; and
Whereas, President Donald J. Trump has exhibited an alarming pattern of behavior 
        and speech causing concern that a mental disorder may have rendered him 
        unfit and unable to fulfill his Constitutional duties: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) urges the Vice President and the Cabinet to quickly 
        secure the services of medical and psychiatric professionals to 
        examine the President to assist in their deliberations under 
        the 25th Amendment to determine whether the President suffers 
        from mental disorder or other injury that impairs his abilities 
        and prevents him from discharging his Constitutional duties; 
        and
            (2) strongly encourages the Vice President and the Cabinet 
        to take immediate action pursuant to the 25th Amendment and 
        report to Congress as outlined in that Amendment.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 132860 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 132860 COA: 265199 Wayne CC: 05-002106-01 DARRYL ANTHONY MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 14, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p0319 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 26, 2007

Clerk
#### In the Matter of New York News, Inc., Petitioner, v Thomas B. Galligan et al., Respondents. In the Matter of New York Times Company, Petitioner, v Thomas B. Galligan et al., Respondents. In the Matter of News Group Publications, Inc., Petitioner, v Thomas B. Galligan et al., Respondents.

Applications pursuant to CPLR article 78, in the nature of writs of prohibition, unanimously denied, without costs and without disbursements. The stays heretofore granted herein on October 10, 1980, by a Justice of this court, are vacated. In the circumstances before us, we cannot say that there was an improvident exercise of discretion. It is apparent that the hearing court was concerned that further disclosure at this stage might conceivably endanger the life of a defendant. No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Bims, Silverman, Bloom and Carro, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          79,151
<SECURITIES>                                       400
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,398
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,949
<PP&E>                                       3,011,349
<DEPRECIATION>                                 791,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,323,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,069
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,179,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,323,689
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               214,620
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  107,178
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                107,442
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            107,442
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   107,442
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.64
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 72
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 72.102 Geological and seismological characteristics for applications before October 16, 2003 and applications for other than dry cask modes of storage. ( a ) ( 1 ) East of the Rocky Mountain Front (east of approximately 104° west longitude), except in areas of known seismic activity including but not limited to the regions around New Madrid, MO, Charleston, SC, and Attica, NY, sites will be acceptable if the results from onsite foundation and geological investigation, literature review, and regional geological reconnaissance show no unstable geological characteristics, soil stability problems, or potential for vibratory ground motion at the site in excess of an appropriate response spectrum anchored at 0.2 g.
( 2 ) For those sites that have been evaluated under paragraph (a)(1) of this section that are east of the Rocky Mountain Front, and that are not in areas of known seismic activity, a standardized design earthquake (DE) described by an appropriate response spectrum anchored at 0.25 g may be used. Alternatively, a site-specific DE may be determined by using the criteria and level of investigations required by appendix A of part 100 of this chapter.
( b ) West of the Rocky Mountain Front (west of approximately 104° west longitude), and in other areas of known potential seismic activity, seismicity will be evaluated by the techniques of appendix A of part 100 of this chapter. Sites that lie within the range of strong near-field ground motion from historical earthquakes on large capable faults should be avoided.
( c ) Sites other than bedrock sites must be evaluated for their liquefaction potential or other soil instability due to vibratory ground motion.
( d ) Site-specific investigations and laboratory analyses must show that soil conditions are adequate for the proposed foundation loading.
( e ) In an evaluation of alternative sites, those which require a minimum of engineered provisions to correct site deficiencies are preferred. Sites with unstable geologic characteristics should be avoided.
( f ) The design earthquake (DE) for use in the design of structures must be determined as follows: ( 1 ) For sites that have been evaluated under the criteria of appendix A of 10 CFR part 100, the DE must be equivalent to the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) for a nuclear power plant.
( 2 ) Regardless of the results of the investigations anywhere in the continental U.S., the DE must have a value for the horizontal ground motion of no less than 0.10 g with the appropriate response spectrum.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frank J. Nicolas, Respondent, v. August Luchow, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed January 26, 1968. The claimant was employed as a dishwasher and silverman in appellant’s restaurant for a period of more than nine years. He worked an eight-hour daily shift from 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. On June 10, 1965, the day of the alleged accident, claimant’s work entailed the separation of soiled silverware, china dishes, cups, coffee pots, etc., for cleaning in a dish-washing machine. Claimant would stand at a table and separate the knives, forks and spoons and place them in water under the table. Cups and glasses would be separated and placed in wire baskets which he would slide down a slanting ramp which was part of the table, to another person who fed them into a dishwashing machine. The coffee serving pots, which varied in size from between 1 and 15 cups, were also placed in wire baskets located on a shelf above the table. The table at which claimant worked was 36 inches high. Above this table were two shelves, the top one upon which the baskets for the coffee pots were located, was pitched at a 45 degree angle and began its rise upward at a-point 59 inches above the kitchen floor. After a wire basket was filled with various size coffee pots the claimant would have to reach up and stretch as far as he could and lift the basket up off the shelf and down to the table where it would be slid along to the washing machine. The record contains various estimates of the weight of the coffee pots — the board quotes the finding of the consulting engineer that the weight was 30 pounds. The board found that the lifting of a “ heavy rack of coffee pots in a hot and humid restaurant kitchen * * * was arduous and strenuous exertion more than the ordinary wear and tear of life and precipitated an acute myocardial infarction.” Dr. Shub’s testimony, when considered in its entirety, establishes causal relationship between the claimant’s work and his heart attack. The doctor was shown an exhibit of the kitchen with the location of the shelves and other details and stated that the work activity called for *“*effort ”. In his opinion, considering the work that the claimant testified he had been performing, the cumulative work effort was responsible for the pain in his chest “ while lifting a heavy rack of coffee pots ” and *“*precipitated the acute myoeadial infarction ”. Work overhead with arms and body stretched upward has frequently been held to have satisfied the requirement of unusual or excessive strain. *(Matter of Cronberg*v. *Lenmar Holding Corp.,*17 A D 2d 885, and cases there cited; *Matter of Jessup*v. *Jessup & Stevens Garage,*12 A D 2d 699, affd. 10 N Y 2d 854; *Matter of Sawatzki*v. *Friedman,*4 A D 2d 907, mot. for lv. to app. den. 3 N Y 2d 710.) Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’” Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., *1005Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Thomas M. Duff, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Wellman, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.        Date   August 7, 2006 By:  /s/Thomas M. Duff   Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 981 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 981

To prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting the Indian Health Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2017

  Mrs. Torres (for herself, Mr. Cole, Mr. O'Halleran, and Mr. Jones) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting the Indian Health Service.

    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 ``Indian Health Service Hiring Freeze 
Exemption Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON HIRING FREEZE FROM AFFECTING INDIAN HEALTH 
              SERVICE.

    The memorandum titled ``Presidential Memorandum Regarding the 
Hiring Freeze'' published on January 23, 2017, or any other 
substantially similar memorandum, Executive order, or other action by 
the President to prevent a department or agency of the Federal 
Government from filling vacant Federal civilian employee positions or 
creating new such positions, shall have no force or effect with respect 
to positions within the Indian Health Service.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 
 
 Re: Employment Agreement
   Position and Duties
 Term of Employment
 Compensation
 Salary
 Bonus:
 Benefits
 1




---



##### 







Voluntary Termination


Other Termination


Termination by Disability


Termination for Cause or Death




Termination Without Cause 2




---



##### 





















Resignation for Good Reason






3



---



##### 



Termination or Resignation For Good Reason Following a Change of Control
 Change of Control/Good Reason
     4




---



##### 



Confidential and Proprietary Information
 5




---



##### 



Termination Obligations
    Limitation of Payments and Benefits
     Other Activities
 6




---



##### 



Dispute Resolution
 Severability
 Applicable Withholding.
 Assignment
 Entire Agreement
 Governing Law.
 Modification
 7




---



##### 



By:
    
    /S/
Charles D. KissnerCharles D. KissnerChairman and Chief Executive Officer
  Date:
June 26, 2002
    
    /S/ Paul KennardPaul Kennard
 8
#### In the Matter of the Application of Nathan Grabler for Admission to the Bar.

Motion by applicant to vacate order of this court, dated December 22, 1969, which denied his application for admission to the Bar of the State of New York, and for a rehearing. Motion denied in all respects. Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
IV 

House Calendar No. 135 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 621 

[Report No. 109–350] 

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the 

Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16 (legislative day, DECEMBER 15), 2005 

Mr. GINGREY, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4437) 

to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 

strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of 

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee 

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further 

5 consideration of the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the Immi6 gration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of 
2 

HRES 621 RH 

1 the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for 

2 other purposes. No further general debate shall be in 

3 order, and remaining proceedings under House Resolution 

4 610 shall be considered as subsumed by this resolution. 

5 Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further 

6 amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order ex7 cept those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 

8 accompanying this resolution. Each further amendment 

9 may be offered only in the order printed in the report, 

10 may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 

11 shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 

12 specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 

13 the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 

14 amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for divi15 sion of the question in the House or in the Committee 

16 of the Whole. All points of order against such further 

17 amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consider18 ation of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 

19 and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 

20 further amendments as may have been adopted. The pre21 vious question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 

22 and amendments thereto to final passage without inter23 vening motion except one motion to recommit with or 

24 without instructions. 

House Calendar No. 135 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 621 

[Report No. 109–350] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 

D

other purposes. tion laws, to enhance border security, and for Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigra4437) to amend the Immigration and Nationality 

ECEMBER 16 (legislative day, DECEMBER 15), 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
#### Mary Grace Marden et al., Appellants, v Maurice Villency, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[815 NYS2d 501]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered March 3, 2005, which granted defendant Maurice Villency’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The moving defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, shifting the burden to plaintiffs to demonstrate a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 326-327 [1986]). To withstand the motion, plaintiffs *403were required to come forward with evidentiary proof in admissible form. Instead, they opposed the motion with the unsworn report of an interior designer. Since the contents of the report were not in admissible form, they were of no evidentiary value. Even if the report had been in affidavit form, its probative value was questionable as its contents were conclusory and speculative *(see Timmins v Tishman Constr. Corp.,*9 AD3d *62, 70*[2004] , *lv dismissed*4 NY3d 739 [2004]).

Furthermore, even assuming Maurice Villency’s service technician had noted the chair at issue was inadequately glued, there was no testimony as to the condition of the chairs at the time of sale. Notably, the service technician testified that the chairs deteriorated from usage, and it was common for glue to dry up with time. Thus, plaintiffs have not shown that a manufacturing or design defect was a substantial factor in this accident *(see Shelden v Hample Equip. Co.,*59 NY2d 618 [1983], *affg*89 AD2d 766 [1982]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 72
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 72.154 Control of purchased material, equipment, and services. ( a ) The licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall establish measures to ensure that purchased material, equipment, and services, whether purchased directly or through contractors and subcontractors, conform to the procurement documents. These measures must include provisions, as appropriate, for source evaluation and selection, objective evidence of quality furnished by the contractor or subcontractor, inspection at the contractor or subcontractor source, and examination of products upon delivery.
( b ) The licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall have available documentary evidence that material and equipment conform to the procurement specifications prior to installation or use of the material and equipment. The licensee and certificate holder shall retain or have available this documentary evidence for the life of the ISFSI, MRS, or spent fuel storage cask. The licensee and certificate holder shall ensure that the evidence is sufficient to identify the specific requirements met by the purchased material and equipment.
( c ) The licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC, or a designee of either, shall assess the effectiveness of the control of quality by contractors and subcontractors at intervals consistent with the importance, complexity, and quantity of the product or services.