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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 94 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Agriculture in 

the One Hundred Ninth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2005 

Mr. GOODLATTE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Agriculture in the One Hundred Ninth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Agriculture 

4 (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Com5 mittee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 

6 shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House 

7 of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 

8 not more than $11,562,481 for the One Hundred Ninth 

9 Congress. 
2 

•HRES 94 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $5,595,604 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2005, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2006; and 

7 (2) not more than $5,966,877 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2006, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2007. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ
Exhibit 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Level 8 Systems, Inc.:


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of our report dated  February 12, 2004,  (which report  expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes an explanatory  paragraph relating to the Company's ability
to continue  as a going  concern)  of Level 8 Systems,  Inc.  for the year ended
December 31, 2003.




/s/ Margolis & Company P.C.
---------------------------
Bala Cynwyd, PA
March 26, 2004


                                      E-77
38473.

#### CITY OF FAIRBURN v. CLANTON.

Decided October 10, 1960.

*558
      *William B. Jones,*for plaintiff in error.

*Robert F. Lyle,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to show that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the accident. The petition does not affirmatively show that the victim’s motor scooter was not under control or that the operator was overrunning his vision at an excessive rate of speed, and it is a matter of defense for the city to prove to the contrary. It does not appear from the petition that, if the defendant was negligent, its negligence was too1 remote to be considered the proximate cause of the accident.

Although, until 1952, dependency was a condition to an action -to recover for the homicide of a child, the intention of the legislature that year is clear when it struck the provision of the *Code*(§ 105-1307) relating to' dependency. Therefore, a father may, if there is no mother, wife or children, recover for the homicide of a child, minor or sui juris, irrespective of dependency.

On the question presented concerning the work conducted by the City of Fairburn outside the incorporated limits, it not being alleged that the project was ultra vires, this fact renders the city no less liable for its negligent acts. The case of *City Council of Augusta v. Mackey,*113 Ga. 64 (38 S. E. 339) is the leading case in point. There it was stated: “A municipal corporation which is invested with power to construct a system of waterworks for the benefit of the city beyond its corporate limits, to accomplish which it has been specifically authorized to lay mains and pipes under and across public highways, is liable to one injured by the negligent execution of the power granted.” The failure, by signal, sign or other warning device, to put the public on notice of a hazard may constitute negligence.

*559The purpose of the written notice required under *Code Ann.*§ 69-308 is to put the city on notice so that it can investigate a claim for the purpose of determining whether it chooses to adjust the claim or contest its validity in the courts. Slight inaccuracies of the facts will not render the notice invalid. *Aldred v. City of Summerville, 215*Ga. 651 (113 S. E. 2d 108). Moreover, the city under the established principle of law cited, became estopped when, in its acknowledgment of the notice (Exhibit “B”) it stated that it had made a complete and thorough investigation of the claim and that it denied the claim, the sole purpose of notice being to provide opportunity for complete investigation.

The court did not err in overruling the demurrers to the plaintiff’s petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.*
IV 

House Calendar No. 222 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 958 

[Report No. 109–606] 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2006 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with 

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 

from the Committee on Rules. 

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the 

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to 

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported on the legislative day of July 28, 2006, providing 

6 for consideration or disposition of any of the following 

7 measures: 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
2 

HRES 958 RH 

1 (1) A conference report to accompany the bill 

2 (H.R. 2830) to amend the Employee Retirement In3 come Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue 

4 Code of 1986 to reform the pension funding rules, 

5 and for other purposes. 

6 (2) A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code 

7 of 1986 to increase the unified credit against the es8 tate tax to an exclusion equivalent of $5,000,000, to 

9 repeal the sunset provision for the estate and gen10 eration-skipping taxes, and to extend expiring provi11 sions, and for other purposes. 

12 (3) A bill to provide economic security for all 

13 Americans, and for other purposes. 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS

wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 222 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 958 

[Report No. 109

–606] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

tions reported from the Committee on Rules. with respect to consideration of certain resoluJULY 27, 2006 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Auto Receivables Trust 1995-1
$ 252,234,680 6.00% Auto Receivables Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 1998




         PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
            DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %
        ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-98   3,705,840     460,203     124,032    0.92%    2,020,906    3.51%
 Feb-98   3,610,252     448,658      31,112    3.03%    1,700,686    4.12%
 Mar-98   3,382,879     371,626      91,720    0.82%    1,771,063    3.72%
 Apr-98   3,812,612     370,318      68,341    2.62%    1,447,203    4.22%
 May-98   3,257,598     339,253      69,294    2.12%    1,336,275    3.74%
 Jun-98   2,946,833     301,487      47,348    2.32%    1,289,246    3.73%
 Jul-98   3,020,137     292,742       9,708    1.73%    1,189,577    3.94%
 Aug-98   2,876,191     269,179      32,889    0.39%    1,101,821    3.98%
 Sep-98   2,710,533     246,387      (4,946)   1.46%    1,026,985    4.06%
 Oct-98   2,392,991     216,282       7,780   -0.24%      881,517    4.16%
 Nov-98   2,247,096     200,778      30,398    0.42%      954,573    3.93%
 Dec-98   2,087,000     178,307     (15,429)   1.79%    1,003,249    4.70%
        ____________ ___________ ___________
 Totals  36,049,962   3,695,221     492,247

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.
38492.

#### ANDREWS v. THE STATE.

Townsend, Judge.

1. “That a person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at a certain time may be proved by indirect as well as by direct evidence; opinion evidence is material and has a direct probative value on the question of intoxication.” *Jackson v. State,*204 Ga. 47, 52 (48 S. E.2d 864). “Where the deputy sheriff, a witness who had an opportunity to observe and did observe the defendant, testified that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, this was a statement of fact actually ■ observed by the witness at the time as evidenced by the defendant’s conduct and appearance. *Johnson v. State,*69 Ga. App. 377 (25 S. E. 2d 584).” *Donley v. State,*72 Ga. App. 429, 430 (33 S. E. 2d 925).

2. The testimony in this case is to the effect that the police chief of Tignall, Georgia, saw the defendant operating an automobile at a speed of 40 miles per hour in a 20 mile per hour zone on Wooten Street within the municipality; that he stopped the automobile; that the defendant “was too much under the influence of liquor to drive an automobile properly; he got out of the car but I didn’t ask him to walk because I knew he was pretty well high . . . and when I stopped him I smelled he was drinking, and he looked like he was too drunk to be driving . . . And he admitted to me that day that he was drinking.” The officer did not let the defendant drive the automobile away, but allowed a passenger in the car to drive, instructing him to drive down to the Wagon Wheel and he would be back in a little while. *424Within a half hour to an hour he returned and arrested the defendant. The latter in his statement admitted that the officer on first stopping him accused him of drinking and that he answered, “If you think I been drinking, I’ll let the other boy drive,” and admitted that he had taken a drink before the arrest was made, but stated that he had not taken a drink until after the operation of the vehicle was turned over to the other occupant.

Decided September 22, 1960.

*Walton Hardin,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. Cecil Davis, Solicitor-General,*contra.

The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the defendant was driving the automobile while under the influence of intoxicants, and that it was less safe for the defendant to operate the automobile in his condition than it would have been had he not been under the influence of intoxicants, as against a motion for new trial on the general grounds only.

The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Gardner, P. J., Carlisle and Frarikum, JJ., concur.*
Order entered April 23, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01359-CR

TOM ILES WHITE, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-81783-2013

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On March 30, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the reporter’s 

record had not been filed. On April 20, 2015, we received the reporter’s record. Therefore, in 

the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the March 30, 2015 order requiring findings.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
#### O’CONNOR v. LEVINE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 26, 1915.)

Action by Daniel P. O’Con-nor against Arthur J. Levine.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
§ 1305.26 Lost electronic orders. ( a ) If a purchaser determines that an unfilled electronic order has been lost before or after receipt, the purchaser must provide, to the supplier, a signed statement containing the unique tracking number and date of the lost order and stating that the goods covered by the first order were not received through loss of that order.
( b ) If the purchaser executes an order to replace the lost order, the purchaser must electronically link an electronic record of the second order and a copy of the statement with the record of the first order and retain them.
( c ) If the supplier to whom the order was directed subsequently receives the first order, the supplier must indicate that it is “Not Accepted” and return it to the purchaser. The purchaser must link the returned order to the record of that order and the statement.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 586-587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33270]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated October 19, 2010, and published in the Federal 
Register on October 26, 2010, 75 FR 65658, Noramco, Inc., Division of 
Ortho-McNeil, Inc., 500 Swedes Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware 
19801, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the following 
basic classes of controlled substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opium, raw (9600)..........................  II
Concentrate of Poppy Straw (9670)..........  II
Tapentadol (9780)..........................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import the Raw Opium (9600) and Concentrate of 
Poppy Straw (9670) to manufacture other controlled substances. The 
company plans to import Tapentadol (9780) in intermediate form for the 
bulk manufacture of Tapentadol (9780) which it will distribute to its 
customers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the 
registration of Noramco Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled 
substances is consistent with the public interest and with United 
States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or 
protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Noramco Inc. 
to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public 
interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the 
company's physical security systems, verification of the

[[Page 587]]

company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the 
company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 
952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above 
named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic 
classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: December 23, 2010.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-33270 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 865 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 865

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 13, 2006.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 5576) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, 
Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of 
Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2007, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in 
the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as 
follows: beginning with ``to'' on page 5, line 23 through the comma on line 24; 
beginning with the colon on page 6, line 22 through ``year'' on line 26; 
beginning with ``for'' on page 13, line 1 through ``Code'' on line 6; beginning 
with the colon on page 13, line 17 through ``expended'' on line 25; and sections 
120, 127, 129, 206, 530, 707, and 931. Where points of order are waived against 
part of a paragraph, points of order against language in another part of such 
paragraph may be made only against such other part and not against the entire 
paragraph. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of 
rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the 
committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
yearIDsourceTypeIDsourceTypePopulation

2021 11 22330.68299 2021 21 468459.7133 2021 31 150754.8696 2021 32 50364.63874 2021 41 659.0815059 2021 42 310.0330641 2021 43 4386.231621 2021 51 141.8195445 2021 52 17967.94431 2021 53 2835.541027 2021 54 4286.910406 2021 61 3166.218733 2021 62 4555.195208
§ 904.9 Excess capacity. ( a ) If the Uprating Program results in Excess Capacity, Western shall be entitled to such Excess Capacity to integrate the operation of the Boulder City Area Projects and other Federal Projects on the Colorado River. Specific criteria for the use of Excess Capacity by Western will be provided by Contract. All Excess Capacity not required by Western for the purposes specified by Contract will be available to all Contractors at no additional cost on a pro rata basis based on the ratio of each Contractor's Capacity allocation to the total Capacity allocation.
( b ) Credits for benefits resulting from project integration shall be determined by Western and such benefits shall be apportioned in accordance with paragraph (9) of § 904.5 of these General Regulations.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 650 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 650

  Recognizing the results of the free and fair elections for the new 
  Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands held on 
                           November 9, 2017.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2017

 Mr. Diaz-Balart (for himself, Mr. Holding, and Mr. Kilmer) submitted 
   the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                            Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing the results of the free and fair elections for the new 
  Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands held on 
                           November 9, 2017.

Whereas the United States supports the principles of democratic processes across 
        the world;
Whereas the Falkland Islands referendum of March 2013 clearly set out the wishes 
        of the Islanders, when 99.8 percent of those who voted chose to maintain 
        their status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom;
Whereas the people of the Falkland Islands have the right to decide their own 
        future as enshrined in the United Nations Charter and in Article One of 
        the two United Nations Covenants on Human Rights, by which they freely 
        determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and 
        cultural development free from intimidation and harassment;
Whereas it is the obligation of countries to respect the legally binding 
        principle of self-determination;
Whereas the Falkland Islands' election on November 9, 2017, is an expression of 
        that principle of self-determination; and
Whereas the United Kingdom is a loyal ally that has stood by the United States 
        for over a century: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) welcomes the free, fair, and democratic elections of 
        the Falkland Islands;
            (2) acknowledges that only the people of the Falkland 
        Islands can determine the future of the Falkland Islands; and
            (3) recognizes the United Kingdom's sovereignty over the 
        Falkland Islands for as long as the Islands desire to remain a 
        self-governing Overseas Territory.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1.329 Do other statutory provisions and regulations apply? ( a ) In addition to the regulations in this subpart, you must comply with all other applicable statutory provisions and regulations related to the establishment and maintenance of records for foods except as described in paragraph (b) of this section. For example, the regulations in this subpart are in addition to existing recordkeeping regulations for low acid canned foods, juice, seafood, infant formula, color additives, bottled water, animal feed, and medicated animal feed.
( b ) Records established or maintained to satisfy the requirements of this subpart that meet the definition of electronic records in § 11.3(b)(6) (21 CFR 11.3 (b)(6)) of this chapter are exempt from the requirements of part 11 of this chapter. Records that satisfy the requirements of this subpart but that are also required under other applicable statutory provisions or regulations remain subject to part 11 of this chapter.