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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 101 

To convey to the town of Frannie, Wyoming, certain land withdrawn by 

the Commissioner of Reclamation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Mr. ENZI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To convey to the town of Frannie, Wyoming, certain land 

withdrawn by the Commissioner of Reclamation. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO THE TOWN OF 

4 FRANNIE, WYOMING. 

5 (a) CONVEYANCE.—Subject to valid existing rights, 

6 the Secretary of the Interior shall convey by quitclaim 

7 deed, without consideration, all right, title, and interest 

8 of the United States in and to the parcel of land described 

9 in subsection (b) to the town of Frannie, Wyoming. 
2 

•S 101 IS

1 (b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcel of land re2 ferred to in subsection (a) is the parcel of land withdrawn 

3 by the Commissioner of Reclamation— 

4 (1) consisting of approximately 37,500 square 

5 feet; 

6 (2) located in the town of Frannie, Wyoming; 

7 and 

8 (3) more particularly described in the approved 

9 Plat of Survey of Frannie Townsite, Wyoming, as 

the North 1 10 ⁄2 of Block 26, T. 58 N, R. 97 W. 

11 (c) RESERVATION OF MINERAL RIGHTS.—The con12 veyance under subsection (a) shall be subject to the res13 ervation by the United States of any oil and gas rights. 

14 (d) REVOCATIONS.— 

15 (1) SPECIAL USE PERMIT.—The special use 

16 permit issued by the Commissioner of Reclamation, 

17 numbered O–LM–60–L1413, and dated April 20, 

18 1990, is revoked with respect to the land described 

19 in subsection (b). 

20 (2) SECRETARIAL ORDERS.—The following Sec21 retarial Orders issued by the Commissioner of Rec22 lamation are revoked with respect to the land de23 scribed in subsection (b): 
3 

•S 101 IS

1 (A) The Secretarial Order for the with2 drawal of land for the Shoshone Reclamation 

3 Project dated October 21, 1913, as amended. 

4 (B) The Secretarial Order for the with5 drawal of land for the Frannie Townsite Res6 ervation dated April 19, 1920. 

Æ
```
SPEAKERSCONTENTSINSERTS
```

```
Page 1TOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 2PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 3PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 4PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 5PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 6PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 7PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 8PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 9PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 10PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 11PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 12PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 13PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 14PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 15PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 16PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 17PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 18PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 19PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 20PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 21PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 22PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 23PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 24PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 25PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 26PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 27PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 28PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 29PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 30PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 31PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 32PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 33PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 34PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 35PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 36PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 37PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 38PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 39PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 40PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 41PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 42PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 43PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```

```
Page 44PREV PAGETOP OF DOC
```
#### Paul Rodriguez, an Infant, by His Mother, Alicia Rodriguez, et al., Appellants, v Middle Atlantic Auto Leasing, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered February 6, 1980, is modified, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent that defendants Middle Atlantic and Crown are directed, within 30 days after service of a copy of the order hereon, to furnish the plaintiffs’ attorney with a copy of any MV-104 form filed in connection with the accident here involved, and the names and addresses of any witnesses to the accident known to said defendants (other than plaintiff and Hector Martinez), or, if said defendants do not have any such material, they shall furnish an affidavit by an officer stating that a search of the records under defendants’ control has been made for such material and defendants do not have it, and in the case of the MV-104, whether, so far as said defendants know, any such report was filed; and the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs. While defendants have indicated they do not have any documents other than what has already been furnished to plaintiffs, we think that in view of the plaintiff Paul Rodriguez’ infancy, the age of the accident, and the apparent seriousness of the injuries, defendants should be required either to furnish the document and information directed above or state specifically by affidavit that they have searched their files for that document and information and do not have them. We recognize that in making this direction we may be acting out of excess of caution; but we note that at the time of the previous motions defendants’ attorneys offered to furnish affidavits to this effect to plaintiffs’ attorney and for some reason plaintiffs’ attorney did not choose to accept this offer. The earlier requests for this information appear to have been made by motion for reargument and denied as not proper reargument, and were not passed on by this court on the previous appeal because the appeal from the order denying reargument was dismissed as not appealable. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.
§ 1250.83 Storage of water prior to treatment. The following requirements with respect to the storage of water on vessels prior to treatment must be met in order to obtain approval of treatment facilities under § 1240.90 of this chapter. ( a ) The tank, whether independent or formed by the skin of the ship, deck, tank top, or partitions common with other tanks, shall be free of apparent leakage.
( b ) No sanitary drain shall pass through the tank.
( c ) The tank shall be adequately protected against both the backflow and discharge into it of bilge or highly contaminated water.
§ 11.3 Definitions. ( a ) The definitions and interpretations of terms contained in section 201 of the act apply to those terms when used in this part.
( b ) The following definitions of terms also apply to this part: ( 1 ) *Act* means the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (secs. 201-903 (21 U.S.C. 321-393)).
( 2 ) *Agency* means the Food and Drug Administration.
( 3 ) *Biometrics* means a method of verifying an individual's identity based on measurement of the individual's physical feature(s) or repeatable action(s) where those features and/or actions are both unique to that individual and measurable.
( 4 ) *Closed system* means an environment in which system access is controlled by persons who are responsible for the content of electronic records that are on the system.
( 5 ) *Digital signature* means an electronic signature based upon cryptographic methods of originator authentication, computed by using a set of rules and a set of parameters such that the identity of the signer and the integrity of the data can be verified.
( 6 ) *Electronic record* means any combination of text, graphics, data, audio, pictorial, or other information representation in digital form that is created, modified, maintained, archived, retrieved, or distributed by a computer system.
( 7 ) *Electronic signature* means a computer data compilation of any symbol or series of symbols executed, adopted, or authorized by an individual to be the legally binding equivalent of the individual's handwritten signature.
( 8 ) *Handwritten signature* means the scripted name or legal mark of an individual handwritten by that individual and executed or adopted with the present intention to authenticate a writing in a permanent form. The act of signing with a writing or marking instrument such as a pen or stylus is preserved. The scripted name or legal mark, while conventionally applied to paper, may also be applied to other devices that capture the name or mark.
( 9 ) *Open system* means an environment in which system access is not controlled by persons who are responsible for the content of electronic records that are on the system.
§ 1309.62 Termination of registration. ( a ) The registration of any person shall terminate, without any further action by the Administration, if and when such person dies, ceases legal existence, discontinues business or professional practice, or surrenders a registration. Any registrant who ceases legal existence or discontinues business or professional practice shall promptly notify the Special Agent in Charge of the Administration in the area in which the person is located of such fact and seek authority and instructions to dispose of any List I chemicals obtained under the authority of that registration. Any registrant who ceases legal existence or discontinues business or professional practice or wishes to surrender a registration shall notify the Special Agent in Charge of the Administration in the area in which the person is located of such fact and seek authority and instructions to dispose of any List I chemicals obtained under the authority of that registration.
( b ) The Special Agent in Charge shall authorize and instruct the person to dispose of the List I chemical in one of the following manners: ( 1 ) By transfer to person registered under the Act and authorized to possess the substances;
( 2 ) By delivery to an agent of the Administration or to the nearest office of the Administration;
( 3 ) By such other means as the Special Agent in Charge may determine to assure that the substance does not become available to unauthorized persons.
[60 FR 32454, June 22, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 5916, Feb. 10, 1997; 76 FR 61564, Oct. 5, 2011; 77 FR 4236, Jan. 27, 2012]
###### Editorial Note on Part 55

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 55 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

#### § 55.49 Integrity of examinations and tests.

Applicants, licensees, and facility licensees shall not engage in any activity that compromises the integrity of any application, test, or examination required by this part. The integrity of a test or examination is considered compromised if any activity, regardless of intent, affected, or, but for detection, would have affected the equitable and consistent administration of the test or examination. This includes activities related to the preparation and certification of license applications and all activities related to the preparation, administration, and grading of the tests and examinations required by this part.

[64 FR 19878, Apr. 23, 1999]
# EUR-Lex - 31992R3224 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31992R3224

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3224/92 of 4 November 1992 correcting Regulation (EEC) No 2343/92 on imports of pure- bred animals of the bovine species from third countries and the granting of export refunds thereon and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1544/79 **

*
Official Journal L 320 , 05/11/1992 P. 0030 - 0030 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 45 P. 0164 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 45 P. 0164 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3224/92 of 4 November 1992 correcting Regulation (EEC) No 2342/92 on imports of pure-bred animals of the bovine species from third countries and the granting of export refunds thereon and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1544/79

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 (2), and in particular Articles 10 (5) and 18 (6) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2342/92 (3) tightened up the control provisions applying to imports from third countries and the granting of export refunds on pure-bred animals of bovine species and repealed Regulation (EEC) No 1544/79;

Whereas a check has shown that the German text of that Regulation does not correspond to the measures referred to the Management Committee for its opinion: whereas the German text should therefore be republished in its entirety,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The German text alone is applicable.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication of the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply with effect from 17 August 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 November 1992. For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 24. (2) OJ No L 215, 30. 7. 1992, p. 49. (3) OJ No L 227, 11. 8. 1992, p. 12.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 22, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-01317-CV

ARTHUR N. ASHBUOUWU, Appellant

V.

TAMRAT CHERINET, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-03899-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices FitzGerald and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice Lewis

The filing fee in this case is past due. By postcard dated September 26, 2012, we notified 

appellant the $175 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and 

expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by 

postcard dated September 26, 2012 we notified appellant the docketing statement had not been filed in 

this case. We directed appellant to file the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant 

that failure to do so might result in dismissal of her appeal. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, 

filed the docketing statement, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this 

appeal.
–2–

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b)(c).

121317F.P05

/David Lewis/

DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ARTHUR N. ASHBUOUWU, Appellant

No. 05-12-01317-CV V.

TAMRAT CHERINET, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-03899-C.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lewis. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice FitzGerald 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee TAMRAT CHERINET recover his costs of this appeal 

from appellant ARTHUR N. ASHBUOUWU.

Judgment entered this 22nd day of July, 2013.

/David Lewis/

DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 956 

To regulate monitoring of electronic communications between a prisoner in 

a Bureau of Prisons facility and that prisoner’s attorney or other legal 

representative, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Mr. JEFFRIES (for himself and Mr. COLLINS of Georgia) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To regulate monitoring of electronic communications between 

a prisoner in a Bureau of Prisons facility and that prisoner’s attorney or other legal representative, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Effective Assistance 

5 of Counsel in the Digital Era Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 956 IH

1 SEC. 2. MONITORING OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS 

2 BETWEEN PRISONER AND ATTORNEY. 

3 (a) PROHIBITION ON MONITORING.—Not later than 

4 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

5 Attorney General shall modify any program or system 

6 through which a prisoner (as such term is defined in sec7 tion 107) sends or receives an electronic communication 

8 (as such term is defined in section 2510 of title 18, United 

9 States Code, and including the Trust Fund Limited In10 mate Computer System) to exclude from monitoring the 

11 contents (as such term is defined in section 2510 of title 

12 18, United States Code) of an electronic communication 

13 between a prisoner in a Bureau of Prisons facility and 

14 his or her attorney or other legal representative. 

15 (b) RETENTION OF CONTENTS.—The modification 

16 required under subsection (a) may allow for the retention 

17 of the contents of the electronic communications described 

18 in subsection (a). 

19 (c) EXCEPTION.—If a court of competent jurisdiction 

20 determines that there is sufficient evidence to support a 

21 reasonable belief of the Government that the information 

22 contained in an electronic communication described in 

23 subsection (a) was for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud 

24 or crime, an in camera review of the contents of the com25 munication may be conducted. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2264

___________

Eldon Bugg, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Peggy Boots, Clerk of Randolph * Western District of Missouri.

County Circuit Court; Honorable *

Cynthia Suter, Associate Circuit Judge, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 18, 2010

Filed: February 23, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eldon Bugg appeals from the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action against Peggy Boots, the Circuit Clerk for Randolph County, Missouri, and the

Honorable Cynthia Suter, Associate Circuit Judge for Randolph County, seeking

declaratory and injunctive relief, and monetary damages. Upon careful review, see
-2-

Penn v. United States, 335 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (dismissal based on judicial

immunity reviewed de novo); Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598,

602 (8th Cir. 1999) (dismissal based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971),

reviewed for abuse of discretion); Martin v. Hendren, 127 F.3d 720, 721 (8th Cir.

1997) (dismissal based on quasi-judicial immunity reviewed de novo), we find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Exhibit 23.1











INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Cicero Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160581) of our report dated March 31, 2011with respect to our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Cicero Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and for the years then ended, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cicero Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009.






By:
/s/ Marcum LLPMarch 31, 2011

Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
§ 1305.13 Procedure for filling DEA Forms 222. ( a ) A purchaser must make a copy of the original DEA Form 222 for its records and then submit the original to the supplier. The copy retained by the purchaser may be in paper or electronic form.
( b ) A supplier may fill the order, if possible and if the supplier desires to do so, and must record on the original DEA Form 222 its DEA registration number (if not previously entered by the purchaser) and the number of commercial or bulk containers furnished on each item and the date on which containers are shipped to the purchaser. If an order cannot be filled in its entirety, it may be filled in part and the balance supplied by additional shipments within 60 days following the date of the DEA Form 222. No DEA Form 222 is valid more than 60 days after its execution by the purchaser, except as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
( c ) The controlled substances must be shipped only to the purchaser and the location printed by the Administration on the DEA Form 222, except as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
( d ) The supplier must retain the original DEA Form 222 for the supplier's files in accordance with § 1305.17(c). Any supplier who is not required to report acquisition/disposition transactions to the Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS) under § 1304.33(c) (such as a practitioner) must make and submit a copy of the original DEA Form 222 to DEA, either by mail to the Registration Section, or by email to *DEA.Orderforms@usdoj.gov .* The copy must be forwarded at the close of the month during which the order is filled. If an order is filled by partial shipments, the copy must be forwarded at the close of the month during which the final shipment is made or the 60-day validity period expires.
( e ) The purchaser must record on its copy of the DEA Form 222 the number of commercial or bulk containers furnished on each item and the dates on which the containers are received by the purchaser.
( f ) DEA Forms 222 submitted by registered procurement officers of the Defense Supply Center of the Defense Logistics Agency for delivery to armed services establishments within the United States may be shipped to locations other than the location printed on the DEA Form 222, and in partial shipments at different times not to exceed six months from the date of the order, as designated by the procurement officer when submitting the order.
[70 FR 16911, Apr. 1, 2005, as amended at 84 FR 51374, Sept. 30, 2019; 86 FR 38232, July 20, 2021]
2007-1912.

#### State ex rel. Haney v. Wolaver.

In Mandamus. On answer of respondent and motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.