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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 950 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 950

           Calling for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 26, 2006

  Mr. Kucinich (for himself, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Stark, Ms. Norton, Ms. 
Woolsey, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Lee, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. 
Hinchey, and Mr. Moran of Virginia) submitted the following resolution; 
     which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Calling for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

Whereas the use of nuclear weapons threatens the future of mass publics, cities, 
        nations, civilization itself, and, indeed, all life on Earth;
Whereas nuclear weapons in the arsenal of any country undermine the security of 
        all countries, including the United States;
Whereas under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), all 
        nuclear weapons states are committed to good faith negotiations to 
        achieve nuclear disarmament;
Whereas on June 6, 2006, the Chair and Vice Chair of the National Commission on 
        Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (commonly known as the ``911 
        Commission'') cited as their number one concern for the security of the 
        United States the availability of nuclear weapons materials for an 
        attack against the American people;
Whereas the 2006 Report of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission concludes: 
        ``So long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them. So 
        long as any such weapons remain, there is a risk that they will one day 
        be used, by design or accident. Any such use would be catastrophic.''; 
        and
Whereas the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention, circulated by the United Nations, 
        demonstrates the feasibility of achieving the global elimination of 
        nuclear weapons: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives calls upon the 
President to initiate multilateral negotiations for the abolition of 
nuclear weapons.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 15

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 15 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

#### § 15.25 Written submissions.

A person may submit information or views on the subject of the hearing in writing to the Dockets Management Staff, under § 10.20. The record of the hearing will remain open for 15 days after the hearing is held for any additional written submissions, unless the notice of the hearing specifies otherwise or the presiding officer rules otherwise.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
data here
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          24,292
<SECURITIES>                                    77,349
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,214
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,060
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,246
<PP&E>                                         178,858
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 497,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,053
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           767
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   497,563
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               232,791
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,348
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,995
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 57,577
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,047
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,530
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,530
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)

 

I,Barry M. Portnoy, certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hospitality Properties Trust;

 

2.                                       Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and

 

3.                                       Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report.

 
| Date:  April 3, 2008 |   | /s/  Barry M. Portnoy |
|---------------------------|--------|-----------------------|
|                      |   | Barry  M. Portnoy     |
|                      |   | Managing  Trustee     |

 

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 173
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 173.65 Divinylbenzene copolymer. Divinylbenzene copolymer may be used for the removal of organic substances from aqueous foods under the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The copolymer is prepared in appropriate physical form and is derived by the polymerization of a grade of divinylbenzene which comprises at least 79 weight-percent divinylbenzene, 15 to 20 weight-percent ethylvinylbenzene, and no more than 4 weight-percent nonpolymerizable impurities.
( b ) In accordance with the manufacturer's directions, the copolymer described in paragraph (a) of this section is subjected to pre-use extraction with a water soluble alcohol until the level of divinylbenzene in the extract is less than 50 parts per billion as determined by a method titled, “The Determination of Divinylbenzene in Alcohol Extracts of Amberlite XAD-4,” which is incorporated by reference. Copies of this method are available from the Office of Food Additive Safety (HFS-200), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1200, or available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .* The copolymer is then treated with water according to the manufacturer's recommendation to remove the extraction solvent to guarantee a food-grade purity of the resin at the time of use, in accordance with current good manufacturing practice.
( c ) The temperature of the aqueous food stream contacting the polymer is maintained at 79.4 °C (175 °F) or less.
( d ) The copolymer may be used in contact with food only of Types I, II, and VI-B (excluding carbonated beverages) described in table 1 of paragraph (c) of § 176.170 of this chapter.
[50 FR 61, Jan. 2, 1985, as amended at 88 FR 17722, Mar. 24, 2023]
#### § 1303.33 Waiver or modification of rules.

The Administrator or the presiding officer (with respect to matters pending before him) may modify or waive any rule in this part by notice in advance of the hearing, if he determines that no party in the hearing will be unduly prejudiced and the ends of justice will thereby be served. Such notice of modification or waiver shall be made a part of the record of the hearing.

[36 FR 7786, Apr. 24, 1971. Redesignated at 38 FR 26609, Sept. 24, 1973]
Editorial Note on Part 172
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 172 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 172.150 4-Hydroxymethyl-2,6-di-*tert*-butylphenol. The food additive 4-hydroxymethyl-2,6-di-*tert*-butylphenol may be safely used in food in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The additive has a solidification point of 140 °C-141 °C.
( b ) The additive is used as an antioxidant alone or in combination with other permitted antioxidants.
( c ) The total amount of all antioxidants added to such food shall not exceed 0.02 percent of the oil or fat content of the food, including the essential (volatile) oil content of the food.
#### Donny PANGALILA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-74478.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2005.*

Decided Oct. 21, 2005.

*568Kaaren L. Barr, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, WWS — District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of The District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BRUNETTI and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and KING,** Senior District Judge.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Samuel P. King, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Donny Pangalila, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) af-firmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the IJ’s and BIA’s determination that the petitioner is statutorily ineligible for asylum under the one-year bar. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); *Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir.2001).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review the withholding of removal and CAT claims. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief and must uphold the decision unless the evi*569dence compels a contrary result. *See Hakeem,*273 F.3d at 816.

For withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that there is a “clear probability” that he will be persecuted based on an enumerated ground. *See Lim v. INS,*224 F.3d 929, 937-38 (9th Cir.2000). Petitioner testified that he was robbed during a riot in 1998, that unknown individuals threw rocks at his house, and that a year later three men slashed his car tire and broke the headlights. Because this conduct fails to constitute past persecution, *see Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003), and petitioner’s family members remain in Indonesia, and have not been harmed or threatened, petitioner fails to show a clear probability that he will be persecuted. *See Lim,*224 F.3d at 935 (stating that ongoing family safety mitigates a well-founded fear of future persecution when the family members are “similarly situated to the applicant and thus presumably subject to similar risk.”).

We likewise conclude that the BIA’s determination that petitioner is not entitled to relief under CAT is supported by substantial evidence. *See Gui v. INS,*280 F.3d 1217, 1230 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. REGAN v. HENNESSY et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Mary Regan, against Joseph P. Hennessy and others.

No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          12,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,781
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,626
<INVENTORY>                                    104,049
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               205,121
<PP&E>                                          46,807
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,758
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 241,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,265
<BONDS>                                         30,584
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,666
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,795
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   241,310
<SALES>                                        623,193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               623,193
<CGS>                                          485,634
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  485,634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               106,425
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,235
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,673
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,461
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,534
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,927
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,927
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.10
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-366-CV

MICHAEL HINZMANN, M.D. APPELLANTS

AND CONSULTANTS IN RADIOLOGY

V.

JAMES BOWERS APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellants’ “Unopposed Motion To Dismiss Appeal

With Prejudice.” It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted;

therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for

which let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 21, 2010

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 64 

Recognizing the roles and contributions of America’s Certified Registered 

Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) and their role in providing quality 

healthcare for the public. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2017 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, and Ms. ROYBALALLARD) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the roles and contributions of America’s Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) and their 

role in providing quality healthcare for the public. 

Whereas Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) 

are essential to America’s healthcare system, providing 

high-quality, cost-effective anesthesia care for more than 

150 years; 

Whereas CRNAs safely administer approximately 43 million 

anesthetics to patients each year; 

Whereas CRNAs are the primary providers of anesthesia care 

in rural America, enabling healthcare facilities in these 

medically underserved areas to offer obstetrical, surgical, 

trauma stabilization, and pain management services; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 64 IH 

Whereas CRNAs practice in every setting in which anesthesia 

is delivered, including traditional hospital surgical suites 

and obstetrical delivery rooms; the offices of dentists, podiatrists, ophthalmologists, and plastic surgeons; ambulatory surgical centers; and U.S. Military and Public 

Health Services and Veterans Administration medical facilities; 

Whereas nurse anesthetists first provided anesthesia to 

wounded soldiers during the American Civil War and 

have been the main provider of anesthesia care to U.S. 

military personnel on the front lines since World War I, 

including all current U.S. military actions around the 

globe; and 

Whereas the purpose of National CRNA Week, held January 

22, 2017, through January 28, 2017, is to raise public 

awareness of and celebrate the Nation’s more than 

50,000 Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists and student registered nurse anesthetists: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives thanks 

2 and promotes the profession of Certified Registered Nurse 

3 Anesthetists (CRNAs) by encouraging patients, hospital 

4 administrators, healthcare professionals, policymakers, 

5 and others to become more familiar with the CRNA cre6 dential and the exceptional advanced practice registered 

7 nurses who have earned it by participating in National 

8 CRNA Week. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES
 Jurisdiction OfName
    
    OrganizationClare Capital, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Components, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Electronics, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare, Inc.
    
    MassachusettsClare Instruments, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Micronix Integrated Systems, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaClare Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Technologies, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Technologies, Inc.
    
    TaiwanClare N.V.
    
    BelgiumDirected Energy, Inc.
    
    ColoradoIXYS Buckeye, LLC
    
    DelawareIXYS Caymans L.P.
    
    Cayman IslandsIXYS CH GmbH
    
    SwitzerlandIXYS Global Services GmbH
    
    GermanyIXYS Holdings Ltd.
    
    United KingdomIXYS Korea Ltd.
    
    South KoreaIXYS Long Beach, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaIXYS Real Estate Corporation
    
    DelawareIXYS Semiconductor B.V.
    
    NetherlandsIXYS Semiconductor GmbH
    
    GermanyIXYS UK Ltd.
    
    United KingdomIXYS Unterstuetzungseinrichtung GmbH
    
    GermanyIXYS USA, Inc.
    
    DelawareMicrowave Technology, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaPele Technology, Inc.
    
    DelawareReaction Technology Incorporated
    
    CaliforniaWestcode Industries Ltd.
    
    United KingdomWestcode Semiconductors Ltd.
    
    United KingdomZilog Asia, Ltd.
    
    Hong KongZilog Electronics Philippines, Inc.
    
    PhilippinesZilog, Inc.
    
    DelawareZilog India Electronics Ltd.
    
    IndiaZilog International, Ltd.
    
    Cayman IslandsZilog International, Ltd. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland
    
    GermanyZilog International Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeZilog Japan KK
    
    JapanZilog Philippines, Inc.
    
    PhilippinesZilog UK Ltd.
    
    United Kingdom
[No. 38714-6-I.

Division One.

December 1, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Amos Matory, Jr., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Skagit County, No. 95-1-00408-2, George E. McIntosh, J., entered May 2, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Memo to File

Date: August 6 2015 From: Doris Lo, EPA Region 9, Air Planning Off

- 

# g To: EPA Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0534 (San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Contingency

Measures) Subject: Non-Substantive Editsto Signed Federal Register (FR) Notice On August 6, 2015, Region 9’s Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed a rule proposing to withdraw a previous EPA approval ofthe San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 contingency measures and simultaneouslyproposing to disapprove. Following signature, we madethe following non-substantive changesto the FR notice to complywith the Office ofFederal Register’s (OFR) policies before sending to OFR forpublication:

- deleted a referenceto afederal register notice associated with a May 22, 2014 rulemaking;

- revised “DATE” to read “DATES”; and

- revised the docket number under “ADDRESSES” to reflectthe correct docket number These changes were made afterthe prepublication version was created and sentto stakeholders.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 2-74896, No. 33-38737 and No. 33-73044) and in the
Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.
33-71030) and in the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement
on Form S-4 (No. 33-65229) of Bell Industries, Inc. of our report dated February
4, 1997 appearing on page 12 of this Form 10-K.
 
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
 
Los Angeles, California
March 19, 1997
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCAD-10-0000194 

18-MAR-2011 

10:47 AM 

SCAD-10-0000194
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

DANILO T. AGUILAR, Respondent.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(ODC 10-070-8904)
 

ORDER OF DISBARMENT
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba and Duffy, JJ.,


and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura,


assigned by reason of vacancy)
 

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary 

Counsel’s Petition for Issuance of Reciprocal Discipline Notice, 

our December 22, 2010 Notice and Order, Respondent Danilo T. 

Aguilar’s lack of response to the notice and order, and the 

record, it appears Respondent Aguilar was disbarred by the United 

States District Court for the District of Hawai'i on November 24, 

2010 after conviction upon 2 counts of money laundering. It 

further appears Respondent Aguilar was summarily suspended from 

practice by the Supreme Court of Guam on September 10, 2010. It 

further appears that Respondent Aguilar does not maintain a 

practice in this jurisdiction and delaying the effective date of 

this order for thirty days, as provided by Rule 2.16(c) of the 

Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH), would 

serve no purpose. Therefore, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Danilo T. Aguilar
 

is disbarred, effective upon entry of this order.
 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other 

requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the 

Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i, Respondent Aguilar shall 

pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely 

submission of a bill of costs. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Aguilar shall,
 

within ten (10) days after the date of this order, file with this
 

court an affidavit in full compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d). 


DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 18, 2011. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. 

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. 

/s/ Craig H. Nakamura 

2