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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 852 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 852

  Expressing the sense of the House that Members of Congress are not 
               immune from having their offices searched.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2006

Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida (for herself, Mr. Leach, Mrs. Myrick, 
 Mr. Bass, Mr. Porter, Mr. Simmons, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Fitzpatrick of 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Dent, Ms. Harris, Mrs. 
Kelly, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Shays, Mr. Keller, Mr. Hefley, Mr. 
 Mica, and Mr. Hayworth) submitted the following resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the House that Members of Congress are not 
               immune from having their offices searched.

Whereas Members of Congress are not above the law;
Whereas Members of Congress have a public trust to uphold;
Whereas Members of Congress are elected to represent the interests of their 
        constituents, not to protect their own interests;
Whereas only certain legislative activities are protected from interference by 
        the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution; and
Whereas the courts have ruled that the Speech or Debate Clause does not shield 
        Members from investigation of and prosecution for criminal activity: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That it is the sense of the House that if there is an 
ongoing criminal investigation into a Member of Congress, then that 
Member's congressional office may be subject to searches and seizures 
by appropriate executive branch officials in possession of a valid 
court order.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meetings; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Independent Panel to Review the Judge Advocate Requirements of the Department of the Navy (DoN) (hereinafter referred to as the Panel) published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 17, 2010, concerning an open meeting. The document contained an incorrect time for the Panel meeting.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. Frank A. Putzu, Designated Federal Official, Department of the Navy, Office of the General Counsel, Naval Sea Systems Command, Office of Counsel, 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue, SE., Washington Navy Yard, Building 197, Room 4W-3153, Washington, DC 20376, via Telephone: 202-781-3097; Fax: 202-781-4628; or E-mail:                         *frank.putzu@navy.mil.*

## Correction 

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 17, 2010, in FR Doc. 2010-31797, on page 78979, in the second column, correct the                         **DATES**                         caption to read:                    

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Friday, January 7th, 2011, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

Dated: December 21, 2010.

D. J. Werner,

Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-32758 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
PGI 232.670 Transfer of responsibility for

debt collection.

Disbursing officers will transfer responsibility for debt collection to department/agency contract

financing offices in accordance with comptroller regulations. Notwithstanding the transfer of the

debt collection responsibility, contracting officers shall continue to provide assistance as requested

by the debt collection office.

Parent topic: PGI 232.6 -CONTRACT DEBTS
38172.

#### JOHNSON *et al.*v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY *et al.*

Decided November 30, 1960.

Bell, Judge.

The judgment of this court (101 Ga. App. 734, 115 S. E. 2d 221) reversing the trial court’s overruling the general-demurrers of the plaintiffs to the petition seeking a declaratory judgment having been reversed by the Supreme Court of Georgia on certiorari *(St. Paul Fire*&c. *Ins. Co. v. Johnson,*216 Ga. 437, 117 S. E. 2d 459), the judgment of this court is vacated, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.*

*750*Wilkinson & Walker, A. Mims Wilkinson, Jr., F. W. Scroggins,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Moise, Post & Gardner, R. Emerson Gardner, J. William Gibson, Gambrell, Harlan, Russell, Moye & Richardson, James C. Hill, Edward W. Killorin,*contra.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 117.9 Records required for this subpart. ( a ) Records that document training required by § 117.4(b)(2) must be established and maintained.
( b ) The records that must be established and maintained are subject to the requirements of subpart F of this part.
§ 129.37 Sanitary operations. ( a ) The product water-contact surfaces of all multiservice containers, utensils, pipes, and equipment used in the transportation, processing, handling, and storage of product water shall be clean and adequately sanitized. All product water-contact surfaces shall be inspected by plant personnel as often as necessary to maintain the sanitary condition of such surfaces and to assure they are kept free of scale, evidence of oxidation, and other residue. The presence of any unsanitary condition, scale, residue, or oxidation shall be immediately remedied by adequate cleaning and sanitizing of that product water-contact surface prior to use.
( b ) After cleaning, all multiservice containers, utensils, and disassembled piping and equipment shall be transported and stored in such a manner as to assure drainage and shall be protected from contamination.
( c ) Single-service containers and caps or seals shall be purchased and stored in sanitary closures and kept clean therein in a clean, dry place until used. Prior to use they shall be examined, and as necessary, washed, rinsed, and sanitized and shall be handled in a sanitary manner.
( d ) Filling, capping, closing, sealing, and packaging of containers shall be done in a sanitary manner so as to preclude contamination of the bottled drinking water.
38440.

#### CAULEY *et al.*v. GODWIN.

Felton, Chief Judge.

A purported acknowledgment of service in the following language is not an acknowledgment of service of the bill of exception: “Due and legal notice of the within bill of exceptions is hereby acknowledged and it is further agreed that the contents of this bill of exceptions are true and correct.” It is only an acknowledgment of notice of a bill of *414exception to be submitted to the judge for certification. Such a writ of error will be dismissed on motion. *Code Ann.*§ 6-911. *Cleveland v. Wacaster,*186 Ga. 662 (198 S. E. 708); *Knight v. Georgia Power Co.,*95 Ga. App. 289 (97 S. E. 2d 643); *Miller v. Riegel Textile Corp.,*86 Ga. App. 554 (71 S. E. 2d 574).

Decided September 22, 1960.

*Earl Staples,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Gilbert & Head, Howe & Murphy, Henry C. Head, Harold L. Murphy,*contra.

The motion to dismiss the writ of error is granted and the writ is

*Dismissed.*

*Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.*
#### § 1880.30 What policies and procedures must I follow?

The NASA policies and procedures that you must follow are the policies and procedures specified in each applicable section of the OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, as that section is supplemented by the section in this part with the same section number. The contracts that are covered transactions, for example, are specified by section 220 of the OMB guidance (*i.e.*, 2 CFR 180.220) as supplemented by section 220 in this part (*i.e.*, § 1880.220). For any section of OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR 180 that has no corresponding section in this part, NASA policies and procedures are those in the OMB guidance.
# Precedential Decisions

- Notice to Parties with a Pending Petition for Review or Case Before the Full Board Regarding Updating Contact Information  (Updated: 1/30/24)

Advanced Search
- Advanced Search - Precedential Decisions
- New FAQ on the Lack of Quorum Period and Restoration of the Full Board  (2/27/2023)

**Filter items** by any term that exists in the table (e.g. name of appellant, agency, date, or decision number) using the exact phrase.   Sort items in the table  by clicking the header of any column. Issued DateDecision #firstnamelastnameAppellantAgencyIssued DateDecision #firstnamelastnameAppellantAgencyReturn to top-  About MSPB 
- Accessibility
-  Budget and Performance 
-  FOIA 
-  Info Quality Standards
-  No FEAR Act 
-  Office of the Inspector General 
-  Privacy Program 
-  Technical Support 
-  USA.gov 
-  OSC.gov 
-  Vote.gov
U.S. Merit Systems Protection BoardAgency Contact Center
(202) 653-7200

mspb@mspb.gov
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4953

ROBERT LEONARD STEELE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge.

(CR-97-161-MJG)

Submitted: August 24, 1999

Decided: November 2, 1999

Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges,

and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Jeffrey E. Risberg, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne

A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, P. Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert L. Steele appeals the sentence imposed by the district court

following his guilty plea to one count of possession of an unregistered

firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (1994). Steele claims that

the district court used his 1987 Maryland conviction for common law

battery as a predicate offense for application of the heightened sentencing provisions without determining whether the conviction actually stemmed from a crime of violence. See United States Sentencing

Guidelines Manual, §§ 2K2.1(a)(2), 4B1.2(1) (1995). Indeed, the probation officer's presentence report discloses none of the factual circumstances of Steele's conviction for battery. Because common law

battery in Maryland can include offenses that would not be considered

crimes of violence under the federal sentencing guidelines, we vacate

Steele's sentence and remand to the district court with instructions to

investigate the factual circumstances underlying Steele's 1987

conviction.1 See United States v. Kirksey, 138 F.3d 120, 125 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 122 (1998). 2 We also grant Steele's

motion to submit the case without oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court.

VACATED AND REMANDED

_________________________________________________________________

1 The United States concedes that remand is appropriate.

2 We note that because the sentencing hearing preceded Kirksey by four

months, the district court did not have the benefit of our decision prior

to entering judgment.

 2
38379.

#### FRIEDMAN v. THEOFILOS.

Gardner, Presiding Judge.

Mrs. Angeline Theofilos (hereinafter called the plaintiff) brought a suit in the Civil Court of Fulton County on April 20, 1954, against A. M. Friedman (hereinafter called the defendant). The defendant filed defensive pleadings within the statutory time and requested a jury trial. On December 10, 1959, the case came on to be heard before a jury. The judge directed a verdict against the defendant. On February 5, 1960, the defendant filed a *305motion to vacate and set aside the verdict and judgment “upon the ground that at the time said verdict and judgment was taken the Civil Court of Fulton County was without jurisdiction to try said cause, direct a verdict, or enter a judgment thereon, said cause having been automatically dismissed under provisions of the act of the General Assembly of Georgia approved as of December 22, 1953 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 342, 343; Annotated Supplement to the Georgia Code of 1933, § 3-512), on April 20, 1959; that no written order of continuance, and no written order of any kind, had been taken in said case since the date of its filing, which was more than five years before the date of said verdict and judgment; and said case, under the provisions of said act, was no longer pending in said court at the time of the attempted trial, verdict and judgment.” On February 5, 1960, Hon. Thomas L. Camp, Judge of the Civil Court of Fulton County, issued a rule nisi upon the motion to vacate and set aside the verdict and judgment, and set a hearing to be had before him the 11th day of February, 1960. On February 11, 1960, a hearing was had on the motion to vacate and set aside the verdict and judgment, and an order was issued overruling and denying said motion. On February 25, 1960, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial with reference to the overruling and denying of his motion to vacate and set aside the verdict and judgment. On April 15, 1960, a hearing was had on the motion for a new trial, and the same was overruled. A bill of exceptions was tendered to the trial judge on April 27, 1960, assigning as error the order of February 11, 1960, overruling the motion to vacate and set aside the judgment and also the overruling of the motion for a new trial. The defendant’s remedy on objections to a motion to vacate and set aside a verdict and judgment was by direct bill of exceptions to the Court of Appeals, not by motion for a new trial. It will be noted that the bill of exceptions based on objections to the ruling on the motion to vacate and set aside the judgment and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was tendered to the trial judge on April 27, 1960. Since the order on the motion to vacate and set aside the verdict and judgment was issued on February 11, 1960, and no direct bill *306of exceptions was filed to this court within thirty days, the writ of error now before-us must be dismissed.

Decided July 15, 1960

Rehearing denied July 28, 1960.

*Essley B. Burdine, James B. Venable, Margaret Hopkins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Grady E. Rozar,*contra.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Townsend, Carlisle, and Frankum, JJ., concur.*
EXHIBIT 12.2

Hospitality Properties Trust
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Distributions
(in thousands, except ratio amounts)

Year Ended December 31,2008

2007

2006

2005

2004Income from continuing operations

$
133,995

$
227,817

$
156,501

$
118,779

$
116,221Fixed charges


147,184


140,517


81,451


65,263


50,393Adjusted earnings

$
281,179

$
368,334

$
237,952

$
184,042

$
166,614Fixed charges and preferred distributions:Interest on indebtedness and amortization of deferred finance costs

$
147,184

$
140,517

$
81,451

$
65,263

$
50,393Preferred distributions


29,880


26,769


7,656


7,656


9,674Total combined fixed charges and preferred distributions

$
177,064

$
167,286

$
89,107

$
72,919

$
60,067Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred distributions


1.59
x

2.20
x

2.67
x

2.52
x

2.77
x


---



QuickLinks
#### § 1100.2 Requirements.

Cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and any tobacco product containing nicotine not made or derived from tobacco are subject to chapter IX of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and its implementing regulations. FDA has deemed all other tobacco products, except accessories of such other tobacco products, subject to chapter IX of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and its implementing regulations.

[81 FR 29102, May 10, 2016, as amended at 88 FR 16552, Mar. 20, 2023]
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.83 What requirements apply regarding grazing animals, working animals, and animal intrusion? ( a ) You must take the steps set forth in paragraph (b) of this section if under the circumstances there is a reasonable probability that grazing animals, working animals, or animal intrusion will contaminate covered produce.
( b ) You must: ( 1 ) Assess the relevant areas used for a covered activity for evidence of potential contamination of covered produce as needed during the growing season (based on your covered produce; your practices and conditions; and your observations and experience); and
( 2 ) If significant evidence of potential contamination is found (such as observation of animals, animal excreta or crop destruction), you must evaluate whether the covered produce can be harvested in accordance with the requirements of § 112.112 and take measures reasonably necessary during growing to assist you later during harvest when you must identify, and not harvest, covered produce that is reasonably likely to be contaminated with a known or reasonably foreseeable hazard.
#### § 52.25 Extent of activities permitted.

If the activities authorized by § 52.24(c) are performed and the site is not referenced in an application for a construction permit or a combined license issued under subpart C of this part while the permit remains valid, then the early site permit remains in effect solely for the purpose of site redress, and the holder of the permit shall redress the site in accordance with the terms of the site redress plan required by § 52.17(c). If, before redress is complete, a use not envisaged in the redress plan is found for the site or parts thereof, the holder of the permit shall carry out the redress plan to the greatest extent possible consistent with the alternate use.
#### City of Springfield, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dorothea Sager and Helen Runyan, Trustees Under Trust Agreement Dated February 15, 1951, and Carleton Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, and Related Causes.

Gen. No. 10,956. (Abstract of Decision.)

Fourth District.

September 3, 1969.

*289Graham & Graham, and Brunsman, Beam & Crain, of Springfield, for appellants;

W. J. Simhauser, and I. J. Feuer, of Springfield, for appellee.

Opinion by PRESIDING JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH. Not to be published in full.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 980 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 980

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     September 6, 2006.
Whereas the people of Kentucky, including the citizens of the 6th Congressional 
        District, have experienced a terrible tragedy with the loss of 49 lives 
        in the crash of Comair Flight 5191 at Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, 
        Kentucky, on August 27, 2006;
Whereas many of the victims of the crash were residents of Kentucky, 
        particularly of the small, close-knit town of Lexington and other 
        surrounding communities; and
Whereas Federal, State, and local officials have cooperated not only at the 
        crash site but throughout Kentucky and the Nation to respond to the 
        emergency, investigate the accident, and provide assistance to families 
        devastated by the loss of loved ones: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses condolences to the families, friends, and loved ones 
        of the victims of the crash of Comair Flight 5191;
            (2) honors the victims of the crash: Rebecca Adams, Christina 
        Anderson, Lyle Anderson, Arnold Andrews, Anne Marie Bailey, Bobbie 
        Benton, Jesse Clark Benton, Carole Bizzack, George Brunacini, Brian 
        Byrd, Jeffrey Clay, Homer Combs, Diane Combs, Fenton Dawson, Thomas 
        Fahey, Mike Finley, Clarence Wayne ``C.W.'' Fortney II, Wade Bartley 
        ``Bart'' Frederick, Hollie Gilbert, Erik Harris, Kelly Heyer, Jonathan 
        Hooker, Scarlett Parsley Hooker, Priscilla Johnson, Tetsuya Kono, Nahoko 
        Kono, Charles Lykins, Dan Mallory, Steve McElravy, Lynda McKee, Bobby 
        Meaux, Leslie Morris II, Kaye Craig Morris, Cecile Moscoe, Judy Ann 
        Rains, Michael Ryan, Mary Jane Silas, Pat Smith, Tim Snoddy, Marcie 
        Thomason, Greg Threet, Randy Towles, Larry Turner, Victoria Washington, 
        Jeff Williams, Paige Winters, Bryan Woodward, JoAnn Wright, and Betty 
        Young;
            (3) expresses sympathies to the people of Lexington, the entire 
        Commonwealth of Kentucky, and the Nation who grieve for the victims;
            (4) commends the heroic actions of the rescue workers at the crash 
        site who retrieved copilot James M. Polehinke from the wreckage; and
            (5) commends the Federal, State, and local officials and the 
        volunteers who worked together to respond to the tragedy with courage, 
        determination, and skill.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 563 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 563

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     November 18, 2005.
    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds 
vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is 
presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
legislative day of November 18, 2005, providing for consideration or disposition 
of any of the following measures:
            (1) A bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for the 
        fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, any amendment thereto, or any 
        conference report thereon.
            (2) A conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3199) to extend 
        and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other 
        purposes.
            (3) A bill or joint resolution relating to flood insurance.
            (4) A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of 
        the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
            (5) A resolution relating to U.S. forces in Iraq.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```