alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Docket No. 100640. 

### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STA TE OF IL LINOIS

THE PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF IL LI NOIS, Appellant, v. JONATHAN OXFORD, Appellee. Order entered March 22, 2007.
On th e Court’s

own motion, there no

longer being a substa ntia l questio n presented by

this appeal (see In re E.H. , No. 100202 (December

21, 2006) ), the or

der of th e circu

it court of Union Coun

ty finding section115–10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 IL CS 5/115–10 (West 2004)) unconstitutional is vacated and the cause is remande d to that c ourt for further procee dings. Order e ntered b y th e Court.
H. Res. 6 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 3, 2017. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE: Mr. Conaway, Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Frelinghuysen, 

Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Thornberry, 

Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Mrs. Black, Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE: Ms. 

Foxx, Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE: Mr. Walden, 

Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS: Mrs. Brooks of Indiana, Chair, 

Mr. Meehan, Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Marchant, and Mr. Lance. 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. Hensarling, 

Chair. 
2 

•HRES 6 EH 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Mr. Royce of California, Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY: Mr. McCaul, 

Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION: Mr. Harper, 

Chair, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mrs. Comstock, Mr. 

Walker, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, and Mr. Loudermilk. 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Mr. Goodlatte, Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES: Mr. Bishop of 

Utah, Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM: Mr. Chaffetz, Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON RULES: Mr. Sessions, Chair, Mr. Cole, 

Mr. Woodall, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. 

Byrne, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Buck, and Ms. Cheney. 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY: 

Mr. Smith of Texas, Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Mr. Chabot, Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Mr. Shuster, Chair. 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Chair. 
3 

•HRES 6 EH 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: Mr. Brady of Texas, 

Chair. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00112-CV

David Henry Hansen, Appellant

v.

Terry Ann Hansen, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 10,978, HONORABLE H. R. TOWSLEE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

David Henry Hansen has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, stating that he and

Terry Ann Hansen have entered into an agreement under which all matters in controversy between

the parties have been fully settled and compromised. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: July 5, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 404 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 404

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the need 
  to create a small donor and public finance system for Congressional 
                               elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2017

Mr. Nolan submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the need 
  to create a small donor and public finance system for Congressional 
                               elections.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. PROVIDING FOR SMALL DONOR AND PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS.

    It is the sense of the House of Representatives that, in order to 
eliminate the undue influence of money in politics--
            (1) Congress should create a small donor and public finance 
        system for Congressional elections, which will ensure that 
        Congress is responsible to voters instead of well-financed 
        special interests; and
            (2) Members of Congress should devote their full time to 
        regular order and governing instead of campaign fundraising.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.52 Termination of license. ( a ) Following permanent closure and the decontamination or decontamination and dismantlement of surface facilities at the Yucca Mountain site, DOE may apply for an amendment to terminate the license.
( b ) The application must be filed and will be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of § 63.45 and this section.
( c ) A license may be terminated only when the Commission finds with respect to the geologic repository: ( 1 ) That the final disposition of radioactive wastes has been made in conformance with DOE's plan, as amended and approved as part of the license.
( 2 ) That the final state of the geologic repository operations area conforms to DOE's plans for permanent closure and DOE's plans for the decontamination or decontamination and dismantlement of surface facilities, as amended and approved as part of the license.
( 3 ) That the termination of the license is authorized by law, including sections 57, 62, and 81 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended.
§ 5800.890 How may I appeal my debarment? ( a ) If the Commission debarring official issues a decision under 2 CFR 180.870 to debar you after you present information in opposition to a proposed debarment under § 180.815, you may ask for review of the debarring official's decision in two ways: ( 1 ) You may ask the debarring official under § 875 to reconsider the decision for material errors of fact or law that you believe will change the outcome of the matter; or
( 2 ) You may request a review by the EAC's debarment appeals body (DAP), which is composed of the Executive Director, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Operating Officer. The DAP will review your appeal and make a determination on whether to sustain or reverse the decision of the debarring official. The DAP will then make a recommendation to the EAC Commissioners who will vote by circulation on whether to accept or reject the recommendation of the DAP. A request to review the debarring official's decision to debar you must be made within 30 days of your receipt of the debarring official's decision under § 180.870 or paragraph (a)(1) of this section. However, the DAP may recommend to the EAC Commissioners that the debarring official's decision be reversed, based on a majority vote of the DAP, only where the DAP finds that the decision is based on a clear error of material fact or law, or where DAP finds that the debarring official's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. You may appeal the debarring official's decision without requesting reconsideration, or you may appeal the decision of the debarring official on reconsideration.
( b ) A request for review under this section must be in writing; prominently state on the envelope or other cover and at the top of the first page “Debarment Appeal;” state the specific findings you believe to be in error; and include the reasons or legal bases for your position. The appeal request should be delivered or addressed to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005.
( c ) After the circulation vote of the EAC Commissioners has been certified, either the Commission debarring official or the DAP must notify you of their decision under this section, in writing, using the notice procedures set forth at §§ 180.615 and 180.975.
( d ) [Reserved]
( e ) Nothing in this part prohibits the EAC from delegating the appeal review process to another Federal agency through a memorandum of understanding or interagency agreement.
#### § 1.690 How will FDA make information about recognized accreditation bodies and accredited third-party certification bodies available to the public?

FDA will place on its Web site a registry of recognized accreditation bodies and accredited third-party certification bodies, including the name, contact information, and scope and duration of recognition or accreditation. The registry may provide information on third-party certification bodies accredited by recognized accreditation bodies through links to the Web sites of such recognized accreditation bodies. FDA will also place on its Web site a list of accreditation bodies for which it has denied renewal of recognition, for which FDA has revoked recognition, and that have relinquished their recognition or have allowed their recognition to expire. FDA will also place in its Web site a list of certification bodies whose renewal of accreditation has been denied, for which FDA has withdrawn accreditation, and that have relinquished their accreditations or have allowed their accreditations to expire. FDA will place on its Web site determinations under § 1.670(a)(1) and modifications of such determinations under § 1.670(a)(2).
#### § 417.600 How do suspension and debarment actions start?

When Federal agency officials receive information from any source concerning a cause for suspension or debarment, they will promptly report it and the agency will investigate. The officials refer the question of whether to suspend or debar you to their suspending or debarring official for consideration, if appropriate.
§ 1.1151 What requirements apply to the methods of analysis a LAAF-accredited laboratory uses to conduct food testing under this subpart? In addition to the requirements of § 1.1138(a), a LAAF-accredited laboratory must meet the following requirements: ( a ) The method of analysis used to conduct food testing under this subpart must be: ( 1 ) Fit for purpose;
( 2 ) Within the laboratory's scope of LAAF-accreditation;
( 3 ) Appropriately validated for use in such food testing, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section; and
( 4 ) Appropriately verified by the LAAF-accredited laboratory for use in such food testing, in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
( b ) Food testing must be conducted using the specified method: ( 1 ) Under § 1.1107(a)(1), if the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or implementing regulations prescribe a test method.
( 2 ) Under § 1.1107(a)(2), if the directed food laboratory order prescribes a test method.
( c ) ( 1 ) A LAAF-accredited laboratory must validate methods in accordance with the requirements of § 1.1138(a).
( 2 ) A LAAF-accredited laboratory performing validation of a method under this subpart must record the information required by § 1.1138(a) and the supporting analytical data.
( d ) ( 1 ) Before a LAAF-accredited laboratory conducts food testing under this subpart using a method for a specific intended use for which the method has been validated, but for which the LAAF-accredited laboratory has not previously applied the method under this subpart, the LAAF-accredited laboratory must have verified it can properly perform the method for the specific intended use.
( 2 ) A LAAF-accredited laboratory performing verification of a method under this subpart must record the method that is the subject of the verification, the intended purpose of the analysis, the results of the verification, the procedure used for the verification, supporting analytical data, and whether the LAAF-accredited laboratory is able to properly perform the method.
( e ) A LAAF-accredited laboratory may submit a written request to FDA requesting permission to use a method outside of its scope of LAAF-accreditation for food testing. FDA may approve the request if both following conditions are satisfied: ( 1 ) A new method or methodology has been developed and validated but no reasonably available laboratory has been LAAF-accredited to perform such method or methodology, and
( 2 ) The use of such method is necessary to prevent, control, or mitigate a food emergency or foodborne illness outbreak.
§ 960.4-2-2 Geochemistry. ( a ) *Qualifying condition.* The present and expected geochemical characteristics of a site shall be compatible with waste containment and isolation. Considering the likely chemical interactions among radionuclides, the host rock, and the ground water, the characteristics of and the processes operating within the geologic setting shall permit compliance with ( 1 ) the requirements specified in § 960.4-1 for radionuclide releases to the accessible environment and
( 2 ) the requirements specified in 10 CFR 60.113 for radionuclide releases from the engineered-barrier system using reasonably available technology.
( b ) *Favorable conditions.* ( 1 ) The nature and rates of the geochemical processes operating within the geologic setting during the Quaternary Period would, if continued into the future, not affect or would favorably affect the ability of the geologic repository to isolate the waste during the next 100,000 years.
( 2 ) Geochemical conditions that promote the precipitation, diffusion into the rock matrix, or sorption of radionuclides; inhibit the formation of particulates, colloids, inorganic complexes, or organic complexes that increase the mobility of radionuclides; or inhibit the transport of radionuclides by particulates, colloids, or complexes.
( 3 ) Mineral assemblages that, when subjected to expected repository conditions, would remain unaltered or would alter to mineral assemblages with equal or increased capability to retard radionuclide transport.
( 4 ) A combination of expected geochemical conditions and a volumetric flow rate of water in the host rock that would allow less than 0.001 percent per year of the total radionuclide inventory in the repository at 1,000 years to be dissolved.
( 5 ) Any combination of geochemical and physical retardation processes that would decrease the predicted peak cumulative releases of radionuclides to the accessible environment by a factor of 10 as compared to those predicted on the basis of ground-water travel time without such retardation.
( c ) *Potentially adverse conditions.* ( 1 ) Ground-water conditions in the host rock that could affect the solubility or the chemical reactivity of the engineered-barrier system to the extent that the expected repository performance could be compromised.
( 2 ) Geochemical processes or conditions that could reduce the sorption of radionuclides or degrade the rock strength.
( 3 ) Pre-waste-emplacement ground-water conditions in the host rock that are chemically oxidizing.
#### § 603.1220 Award-specific audit.

An audit of a single TIA, usually done at the cognizant contracting officer's request, to help resolve issues that arise during or after the performance of the RD&D project. An award-specific audit of an individual award differs from a periodic audit of a participant (as defined in § 603.1295).
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 96 (Monday, May 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 28672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11503]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Massachusetts Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a briefing meeting of 
the Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 
10:00 a.m. (EST) on Wednesday, June 11, 2014, at Harvard University Law 
School, Lewis Hall, 214B, 1557 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 
02138. The purpose of the briefing meeting is to hear from government 
officials, advocates, and other experts on the issue of school 
discipline in Massachusetts.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the regional office by Friday, July 11, 
2014. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, 
Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Melanie 
Reingardt at ero@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information 
may contact the Eastern Regional Office at 202-376-7533.
    Persons needing accessibility services should contact the Eastern 
Regional Office at least 10 working days before the scheduled date of 
the meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above 
phone number, email, or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated: May 14, 2014.
David Mussatt,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2014-11503 Filed 5-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
§ 200.212 Public access to Federal award information. ( a ) In accordance with statutory requirements for Federal spending transparency (*e.g.,* FFATA), except as noted in this section, for applicable Federal awards the Federal awarding agency must announce all Federal awards publicly and publish the required information on a publicly available OMB-designated governmentwide website.
( b ) All information posted in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS) on or after April 15, 2011 will be publicly available after a waiting period of 14 calendar days, except for: ( 1 ) Past performance reviews required by Federal Government contractors in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 48 CFR part 42, subpart 42.15;
( 2 ) Information that was entered prior to April 15, 2011; or
( 3 ) Information that is withdrawn during the 14-calendar day waiting period by the Federal Government official.
( c ) Nothing in this section may be construed as requiring the publication of information otherwise exempt under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C 552), or controlled unclassified information pursuant to Executive Order 13556.
# SUBCHAPTER C - CONTRACTING METHODS AND CONTRACT TYPES

- PART 2013 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES [RESERVED] 
- PART 2014 - SEALED BIDDING 
- PART 2015 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION 
- PART 2016 - TYPES OF CONTRACTS 
- PART 2017 - SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS 

- PART 2013 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES [RESERVED]   
- PART 2014 - SEALED BIDDING    - Subpart 2014.2 - Solicitation of Bids     - 2014.201   Preparation of invitation for bids.
    - 2014.201-670   Solicitation provisions.
  - Subpart 2014.4 - Opening of Bids and Award of Contract     - 2014.407   Mistakes in bids.
    - 2014.407-3   Other mistakes disclosed before award.
    - 2014.407-4   Mistakes after award.
- PART 2015 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION    - Subpart 2015.2 - Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Implementation     - 2015.209-70   Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
  - Subpart 2015.3 - Source Selection Processes and Techniques     - 2015.300   Scope of subpart.
    - 2015.303   Responsibilities.
    - 2015.304   Evaluation factors.
    - 2015.305   Proposal evaluation.
  - Subpart 2015.6 - Unsolicited Proposals     - 2015.606   Agency procedures.
    - 2015.606-1   Receipt and initial review.
- PART 2016 - TYPES OF CONTRACTS    - Subpart 2016.3 - Cost Reimbursement Contracts     - 2016.307-70   Contract provisions and clauses.
  - Subpart 2016.5 - Indefinite-Delivery Contracts     - 2016.506-70   Contract provisions and clauses.
- PART 2017 - SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS    - Subpart 2017.2 - Options     - 2017.204   Contracts
#### § 903.17 Informal public meetings for minor rate adjustments.

In lieu of public information or comment forums in conjunction with a minor rate adjustment, informal public meetings may be held if deemed appropriate by the Administrator. Such informal meetings will not require a Notice or a transcription.
#### § 960.3-1-4 Evidence for siting decisions.

The siting process involves a sequence of four decisions: The identification of potentially acceptable sites; the nomination of sites as suitable for characterization; the recommendation of sites as candidate sites for site characterization; and after the completion of site characterization and nongeologic data gathering, the recommendation of a candidate site for the development of a repository. Each of these decisions will be supported by the evidence specified below.
###### Editorial Note on Part 25

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 25.431 Foreign public entity.

*Foreign public entity* has the meaning given in 2 CFR 200.1.
§ 1326.20 Does this part apply to me? This part and, through this part, pertinent portions of the OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180 (see table at 2 CFR 180.100(b)) apply to you if you are a— ( a ) Participant or principal in a “covered transaction” (see subpart B of 2 CFR part 180 and the definition of “nonprocurement transaction” at 2 CFR 180.970, as supplemented by subpart B and § 1326.970 of this part).
( b ) Respondent in a Department of Commerce suspension or debarment action.
( c ) Department of Commerce debarment or suspension official;
( d ) Department of Commerce grants officer, agreements officer, or other official authorized to enter into any type of nonprocurement transaction that is a covered transaction;