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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 174 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 174

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         March 8, 2017.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1301) making appropriations for the 
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and 
(2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may insert in the 
Congressional Record not later than Wednesday, March 8, 2017, such material as 
he may deem explanatory of H.R. 1301.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3615

___________________________

Lisa A. Biron lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Michael D. Carvajal, Director Federal Bureau of Prisons, sued in their official capacity; FCI Waseca Warden Mistelle Starr, sued in their official capacity; Deanna Hiller, FCI Waseca Unit Manager; sued in her individual and official capacities

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________ Submitted: June 21, 2022 Filed: June 24, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Federal inmate Lisa Biron appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her pro se

complaint raising claims that Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officials denied her access to the courts, and violated the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to follow BOP regulations. Following a careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the case. See Plymouth Cty. v. Merscorp, Inc. , 774 F.3d 1155, 1158 (8th Cir. 2014) (reviewing dimissal de novo). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Elizabeth Cowan Wright, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
§ 1250.85 Drinking fountains and coolers; ice; constant temperature bottles. ( a ) Drinking fountains and coolers shall be constructed of impervious, nonoxidizing material, and shall be so designed and constructed as to be easily cleaned. The jet of a drinking fountain shall be slanting and the orifice of the jet shall be protected by a guard in such a manner as to prevent contamination thereof by droppings from the mouth. The orifice of such a jet shall be located a sufficient distance above the rim of the basin to prevent backflow.
( b ) Ice shall not be permitted to come in contact with water in coolers or constant temperature bottles.
( c ) Constant temperature bottles and other containers used for storing or dispensing potable water shall be kept clean at all times and shall be subjected to effective bactericidal treatment after each occupancy of the space served and at intervals not exceeding one week.
#### § 2200.220 What contracts and subcontracts, in addition to those listed in 2 CFR 180.220, are covered transactions?

Although the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.220(c) allows a Federal agency to do so (also see optional lower tier coverage in the figure in the appendix to 2 CFR part 180), Corporation for National and Community Service does not extend coverage of nonprocurement suspension and debarment requirements beyond first-tier procurement contracts under a covered nonprocurement transaction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                    5              
<CIK>                               0000812805
<NAME>                           MEDPLUS CORP. 
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1
                                   
<S>                                <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<CASH>                                 (14,278)
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                           43,551
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                              3,172
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        58,290
<PP&E>                                 155,879
<DEPRECIATION>                          43,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         170,266 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                1,783,062
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                          2,000,000
<COMMON>                                 8,322
<OTHER-SE>                                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        (1,612,796)
<SALES>                                  1,422
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             0
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          222,107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (245,169)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          0 
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                          (245,169)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (.03)
        
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                                


</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1297 

To make title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 

permanent, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2017 

Mr. COTTON (for himself, Mr. BURR, Mr. RISCH, Mr. RUBIO, Ms. COLLINS, 

Mr. BLUNT, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. 

ROBERTS, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. PERDUE) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To make title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

Act of 1978 permanent, 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. REPEAL OF SUNSET OF TITLE VII OF THE FOR4 EIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 

5 1978. 

6 (a) REPEAL.—Section 403 of the FISA Amendments 

7 Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–261; 122 Stat. 2474) is 

8 amended by striking subsection (b). 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1297 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 404 of the 

2 FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–261; 50 

3 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking subsection (b). 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.4 Which farms are subject to the requirements of this part? ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a farm or farm mixed-type facility with an average annual monetary value of produce (as “produce” is defined in § 112.3) sold during the previous 3-year period of more than $25,000 (on a rolling basis), adjusted for inflation using 2011 as the baseline year for calculating the adjustment, is a “covered farm” subject to this part. Covered farms subject to this part must comply with all applicable requirements of this part when conducting a covered activity on covered produce.
( b ) A farm is not a covered farm if it satisfies the requirements in § 112.5 and we have not withdrawn the farm's exemption in accordance with the requirements of subpart R of this part.
[80 FR 74547, Nov. 27, 2015, as amended at 84 FR 12490, Apr. 2, 2019]
EXHIBIT 11

 First Health Group Corp. and Subsidiaries
 COMPUTATION OF BASIC EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
 (in thousands except per share amounts) (Unaudited)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                         2002           2001
                                                      ---------      ---------
 Net income ..................................       $   31,014     $   24,400
                                                      =========      =========
 Weighted average number of common shares
   outstanding:
   Shares outstanding from beginning of period          100,023         96,408
   Other issuances of common stock ...........              234            318
                                                      ---------      ---------
 Weighted average common and common share
   equivalents................................          100,257         96,726
                                                      =========      =========
 Net income  per common share.................       $      .31     $      .25
                                                      =========      =========


 First Health Group Corp. and Subsidiaries
 COMPUTATION OF DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
 (in thousands except per share amounts) (Unaudited)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                         2002           2001
                                                      ---------      ---------
 Net income ..................................       $   31,014     $   24,400
                                                      =========      =========
 Weighted average number of common shares
   outstanding:
   Shares outstanding from beginning of period          100,023         96,408
   Other issuances of common stock ...........              234            318
   Common Stock Equivalents:
   Additional equivalent shares issuable from
     assumed exercise of common stock options.            4,186          4,972
                                                      ---------      ---------
 Weighted average common and common share
   equivalents................................          104,443        101,698
                                                      =========      =========
 Net income per common share..................       $      .30     $      .24
                                                      =========      =========
§ 111.127 What quality control operations are required for packaging and labeling operations? Quality control operations for packaging and labeling operations must include: ( a ) Reviewing the results of any visual examination and documentation to ensure that specifications established under § 111.70(f) are met for all products that you receive for packaging and labeling as a dietary supplement (and for distribution rather than for return to the supplier);
( b ) Approving, and releasing from quarantine, all products that you receive for packaging or labeling as a dietary supplement (and for distribution rather than for return to the supplier) before they are used for packaging or labeling;
( c ) Reviewing and approving all records for packaging and label operations;
( d ) Determining whether the finished packaged and labeled dietary supplement conforms to specifications established in accordance with § 111.70(g);
( e ) Conducting any required material review and making any required disposition decision;
( f ) Approving or rejecting any repackaging of a packaged dietary supplement;
( g ) Approving or rejecting any relabeling of a packaged and labeled dietary supplement; and
( h ) Approving for release, or rejecting, any packaged and labeled dietary supplement (including a repackaged or relabeled dietary supplement) for distribution.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1298 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1298

 To modify the criteria used by the Corps of Engineers to dredge small 
                                 ports.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 2017

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To modify the criteria used by the Corps of Engineers to dredge small 
                                 ports.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CRITERIA TO DREDGE SMALL 
              PORTS.

    (a) Minimum Tonnage Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law (including regulations), effective beginning on the 
date of enactment of this Act, the tonnage requirement with respect to 
the consideration of dredging of small ports by the Corps of Engineers 
shall be a minimum of 500,000 tons, as calculated in accordance with 
subsection (b).
    (b) Calculation.--For purposes of subsection (a) and any other 
activity of the Corps of Engineers carried out on or after the date of 
enactment of this Act, tonnage shall be calculated by each relevant 
port authority and submitted to the Corps of Engineers.
                                 <all>
```
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: DECEMBER 31, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2013-1078 

RENAISSANCE JET, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2012EA390030 

Respondent 

NOTICE OF HEARING LOCATION 

On May 13, 2014, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed, which 

noted that the location of the Hearing would be provided by separate Notice to the parties. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Hearing in this case, set to begin on February 3, 2015, 

at 9:00 a.m., will be held at the following location: 

Mecklenburg County Courthouse 

Sixth Floor, Courtroom 6350 

832 East Fourth Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

The Hearing begins at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please allow time to pass 

through security. Weapons of any kind, as well as cameras and audio/video equipment are 

prohibited. Brief cases, purses, packages, and the like will be x-rayed. Laptop computers, 

ipads/tablets, ~md cellular phones are permitted in the courthouse. 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. Zachary M. Berman 

Complainant's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Mr. John Adams Hodge 

Respondent's Counsel 

John Adams Hodge and Associates, LLC 

Post Office Box 25553 

Columbia, SC 292242 

TEL: 803-783-9001/803-386-1504 

FAX: 803-783-9210 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-1078 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: John 

Adams Hodge and Associates, LLC, 136 Stonemark Lane, Suite 10, Columbia, SC 29210.
#### SARA G. ANDERSON AND WILSON G. ANDERSON, RELATORS, v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION AND CITY OF NEWARK. RESPONDENTS.

Submitted February 11, 1939

Decided February 17, 1939.

Before Justice Parker, sitting alone pursuant to statute.

For the relators, *J. Glenn Anderson.*

For the respondent city of Newark, *James F. X. O’Brien.*

For the respondent Essex County Board of Taxation, *David T. Wilentz,*attorney-general.

Parker, J.

The rule to show cause in this case was allowed on the 14th of January, 1939, returnable on the 28th of the same month. It was based upon a petition and affidavits which have never been filed and the original of which has been submitted to me as part of the case for consideration and decision. The rule to show cause was never filed in the clerk’s office for the purpose of being entered in the minutes as required by rule 214 of this court, which provides, among other things, that “all rules, whether granted by the court or a justice, shall be entered in the minutes within ten days from the granting of the same, and in default thereof shall be of no effect.”

*159In the case of *Jersey City*v. *Davis,*80 *N. J. L.*609, a similar situation existed in a *mandamus*case and two rules to show cause were ordered quashed because not entered in time. In the later case of *Singer*v. *Juechter, 2 N. J. Mis. R.*714, the Supreme Court relaxed the rule as a matter of grace, and particularly on the ground (page 716) that the rule was filed in ample time but the failure to enter it was apparently that of the clerk. In *Emma*v. *Loggia, \&c.,*6 *Id.*413, the court relaxed the rule in view of the fact that, if entered, it would have directed the issue of a writ of alternative *mandamus,*and that in fact such writ had issued and was before the court.

There seems to be nothing in the present case to call for a relaxation of the rule. So far as appears, the petition, which should have been filed immediately upon presentation, was never filed, and the rule to show cause based thereon has been held in the office of petitioners’ attorney.

The present rule to show cause under the circumstances is simply nugatory and, consequently, requires no judicial action either way; but in order that the situation may be made a matter of record, I am filing the petition and the rule to show cause with this memorandum, and if counsel for the respondents desire to have a formal discharge of the rule on the grounds above indicated, they may present such a rule for signature.

It may do no harm to add that I see no substantial merit in the present application, which is by two independent taxpayers to intervene in a tax litigation between the taxing authority and the parties subjected to the tax. The statute allowed these relators to apply to the county board within a limited time to include omitted property of other parties, but that time expired before their present application to the court, and there seems to be no statutory or other warrant for intervention in any other way.
#### § 1313.01 Scope.

Procedures governing the importation, exportation, transshipment and in-transit shipment of listed chemicals pursuant to section 1018 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 971) are governed generally by that section and specifically by the sections of this part.

[54 FR 31665, Aug. 1, 1989, as amended at 60 FR 32465, June 22, 1995]
#### Scaccia v. Borough of Old Forge

*Carl Carey,*for plaintiff.

*Ernest D. Preate,*for defendant.

February 23, 1951.

Eagen, J.,

Plaintiff, claiming wages due from defendant for services rendered as a policeman, instituted this action in assumpsit. Defendant moves for judgment upon the pleadings.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff, after having complied with the civil service regulations, was appointed to the position of patrolman of the borough police department in 1946. He served continuously since and has not been paid his entire salary due for the month of March 1950 and that due for subsequent months.

An answer to the complaints admits plaintiff’s appointment and subsequent service as a member of the borough’s police department. However, it alleges he was severed from service on March 14, 1950, when the borough council enacted an ordinance reducing the number of members of the department and abolishing the position held by plaintiff.. These allegations *192were not set up as “new matter”, hence no reply thereto was required or is of record.

The motion must be dismissed. Issues of fact have been raised, which cannot be summarily decided. The situation may have been different if defendant utilized Pa. R. C. P. 1080 and set forth the material allegations of the answer under “new matter”. Defendant’s motion for judgment in effect admits the truth of the facts set forth in the complaint and the untruth of the allegations of the answer, which are denied or at issue because no further pleading is necessary to deny them: Lacey v. Stove Works, 59 Dauph. 425.

Defendant’s counsel argues that although it is unnecessary for plaintiff to deny the existence of the ordinance involved (since it was not pleaded under rule 1030), and even though plaintiff has not had the opportunity to deny its existence, we must take judicial notice that there is such an ordinance and give it full effect at this stage of the proceedings. With this we cannot and do not agree. No case so holding has been called to our attention.

Judicial notice is a dispensation granted one party to an action from producing evidence on a certain point or proposition. However, it-is not conclusive and the other party may, if it is possible, offer evidence in dispute : Wigmore on Evidence, vol. IX, pages 531-36, inclusive. It would seem, therefore, that we cannot at this point accept as conclusive that which may be rebut-table at the trial.

Plaintiff’s complaint sets forth two causes of action in the alternative as permitted by rule 1020. Since this case must proceed to trial upon the first cause set forth it is unnecessary at this time to decide the questions of law raised as to the alternative cause of action.

Now, therefore, February 23, 1951, judgment upon the pleadings is refused and the motion dismissed.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2012

- NM

- 204

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)