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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7259 

To provide for expedited removal of certain illegal aliens. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2024 

Mr. OGLES (for himself, Mr. CLYDE, Mr. DUNCAN, and Mr. MOORE of Alabama) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for expedited removal of certain illegal aliens. 

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 ‘‘Sending Evading Non5 Documented Threats Home Especially Migrants Biden 

6 Accepted Carelessly and Knowingly Act of 2024’’ or the 

7 ‘‘SEND THEM BACK Act of 2024’’. 

8 SEC. 2. EXPEDITED REMOVAL OF CERTAIN ILLEGAL 

9 ALIENS. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi11 sion of law, an alien who entered the United States illeVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:35 Feb 08, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7259.IH H7259

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7259 IH

1 gally on or since January 20, 2021, shall be subject to 

2 expedited removal, even if such alien indicated an inten3 tion to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution. 

4 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

5 any alien who is currently a member of the Armed Forces 

6 of the United States as of January 1, 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### § 333.103 Definitions.

As used in this subpart:

*First aid antibiotic.* An antibiotic-containing drug product applied topically to the skin to help prevent infection in minor cuts, scrapes, and burns.

[52 FR 47322, Dec. 11, 1987, as amended at 64 FR 403, Jan. 5, 1999]
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 24, 2011

d1017 

# Order

October 24, 2011

143333

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143333 COA: 303760 Berrien CC: 2010-001562-FH; EDWARD KEITH DOWNEY, 2010-001563-FH Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Women's Employment in War Industries

              																								United States. Women's Bureau.						"Employment of Women in the Manufacture of Artillery Ammunition : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 189-3" in *Women's Employment in War Industries : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 189*			(1942).						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5462/item/539649, accessed on September 25, 2024.	    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### § 211.50 Sewage and refuse.

Sewage, trash, and other refuse in and from the building and immediate premises shall be disposed of in a safe and sanitary manner.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 and Prospectus of Corixa Corporation for the
registration of additional shares of its Common Stock and to the use of our
report dated January 28, 1998, with respect to the financial statements of
Corixa Corporation.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Seattle, Washington
June 25, 1998
§ 21.52 Administrative appeals of refusals to amend records. ( a ) If an individual disagrees with a refusal under § 21.51(a)(2) to amend a record, he or she may appeal that refusal to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs,(see the address on the agency's web site at *http://www.fda.gov*).
( b ) If, upon appeal, the Commissioner upholds the refusal to amend the record as requested, he shall inform the individual: ( 1 ) Of his decision and the reasons for it.
( 2 ) Of the individual's right to file with the Food and Drug Administration a concise statement of the individual's reasons for disagreeing with the agency's decision not to amend the record as requested.
( 3 ) That the statement of disagreement will be made available to all persons listed in an accounting as having previously received the record and any person to whom the record is subsequently disclosed together with, in the discretion of the Food and Drug Administration, a brief statement summarizing its reasons for refusing to amend the record. Any individual who includes false information in the statement of disagreement filed with the Food and Drug Administration may be subject to penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001, the False Reports to the Government Act.
( 4 ) That the individual has a right to seek judicial review of the refusal to amend the record.
( c ) If the Commissioner on administrative appeal or a court on judicial review determines that the record should be amended in accordance with the individual's request, the Food and Drug Administration shall proceed in accordance with § 21.51(d).
( d ) A final determination on the individual's administrative appeal of the initial refusal to amend the record shall be concluded within 30 working days of the request for such review under paragraph (a) of this section, unless the Commissioner extends such period for good cause and informs the individual in writing of the reasons for the delay and of the approximate date on which a decision of the appeal can be expected.
[42 FR 15626, Mar. 22, 1977, as amended at 50 FR 52278, Dec. 23, 1985; 79 FR 68115, Nov. 14, 2014]
§ 182.1235 Caramel. ( a ) *Product.* Caramel.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing practice.
#### DANT *v.*HALL.

Partnership — Accounting—Propriety of Decree.

On a bill for a partnership accounting, evidence examined, and *held,*to support the decree rendered.

Appeal from Iosco; Connine, J.

Submitted June 8, 1908.

(Docket No. 39.)

Decided September 10, 1908.

Bill by Alexander Dant against George Hall for a partnership accounting. From a decree for defendant, complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Jahraus & Bawden,*for complainant.

*Ward B. Connine,*for defendant.

Carpenter, J.

This is a suit in equity for a copa'rtnership accounting. The copartnership was formed for the purpose of buying and shipping live stock. The suit was heard in the circuit court upon testimony taken in open court. The trial judge made a finding that there was $112.32 due defendant and entered a decree in his favor for that amount. Complainant appeals.

*121The principal complaint in this court is that the trial judge erred in deciding that a certain shipment of stock made by defendant on the 4th of September, 1905, was an individual and not a partnership transaction. This is a question of fact upon which there is conflicting testimony. An examination of that testimony satisfies us that the decision of the circuit judge was correct.

The only other complaint suggested by complainant’s brief relates to the method of computation adopted by the circuit judge. Indeed, we infer that no objection is made to that method, for the brief, though suggesting that a different method “can be taken and justice be done,” nevertheless states “perhaps the only way to determine this case and arrive at anything like a fair adjustment of the differences between these parties is to follow the method used by the trial judge.” We agree to the statement contained in the last quotation.

The decree is affirmed.

Grant, C. J., and Blair, Moore, and McAlvay, JJ., concurred.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,I, Gordon Ellis, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:1. To my knowledge, this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2. To my knowledge, the information in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of International Absorbents Inc. as of July 31, 2006.   Date: September 11, 2006 /s/ GORDON ELLIS     Gordon Ellis
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2012-0110

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM148AD

GOODRICH 30255-0201-28-01, R2 --- 10/21/11

GOODRICH 30255-0201-28-01, R1 --- 6/7/11

GOODRICH ICA T3044-0010-0101, RC --- 5/13/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### Alyea et al. *v.*Alyea et al.

[No. 17,118.

Piled May 28, 1943.]

*449
      *Walter G. Todd*and *Milton E. Craig,*both of Indianapolis, and *Thomas E. Davidson,*of Greensburg, for appellants.'

*John M. Wood,*and *Wiekems & Wickens,*all of Greens-burg, for appellees.

Roysb, C. J. —

Appellee Stella Alyea has filed her motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground: “That no question is presented by the appeal of this case because the only error relied upon by Appellants in their assignment of error is the action of the trial court in overruling their motion for a new trial; that this requires a consideration of the evidence, which evidence is not in the record because the bill of exceptions containing the evidence was not filed during the term at which the motion for a new trial was overruled, and no time was given by the court in which to file said bill of exceptions.”

The assignment of error in this court is on the sole ground: “The trial court erred in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial in said eause.” The motion for a new trial, omitting the formal parts, is as follows:

' “(1) The decision of the Court is contrary to law.

“(2) The decision of the Court is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

“(3) The Court erred in permitting defendant and witness, Howard Alyea, to testify as a witness to any and all transactions or conversations, occurring prior to death of Gregg Alyea, over objections of defendants James Alyea, Esther Alyea and Helen Via for the *450reason that said Howard Alyea was and is rendered incompetent by Statute.”

The only questions presented call for a consideration of the evidence.

The record discloses that on the 10th day of December, 1942, the trial court overruled the motion for a new trial. The entry showing such action of the trial court is as follows: “And now counsel for both sides waive argument on motion for a new trial, and now the court overrules defendants’ joint and separate motion for a new trial. To which ruling of the court the defendants separately and severally object and except.”

The bill of exceptions containing the evidence was not filed, nor presented to, nor signed by the judge until the 13th day of February, 1943. This court knows judicially that the 10th day of December, 1942, was the 34th judicial day of the November, 1942, term of the Decatur Circuit Court, and that the 13th day of February, 1943, was the 12th judicial day of the February, 1943, term of said court. “It is the well-settled law in this jurisdiction that when no time is given in which to file a bill of exceptions, and it is signed and filed after the expiration of the term at which the motion for a new trial was overruled and judgment rendered, such a bill of exceptions is not a part of the record and cannot be considered.” *Croxton*v. *Croxton*(1943), 112 Ind. App. 645, 46 N. E. (2d) 249, and authorities there cited.

No time having been granted at the time the motion for a new trial was overruled, the appeal herein presents no question and is therefore dismissed.

Note, — Reported in 48 N, E. (2d) 1003,
### Bouza, Antonio

From : Bouza, Antonio Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:15 AM To: Bouza, Antonio Subject: Distribution Transformers Energy Conservation Standards: web updated yesterday To all Distribution Transformer stakeholders: The Department of Energy is writing to inform you that the Distribution Transformer web site has been updated with the Final Rule, the Technical Support Document (TSD) and associated analytical spreadsheets. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution transformers.html Best Wishes, Antonio Bouza 

### Building Technologies Program U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington DC 20585-0121 phone: 202.586.4563 antonio.bouza@ee.doe.gov



### 10/23/2007



### Bouza. Antonio From: Bouza, Antonio Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:15 AM To: Bouza, Antonio Subject: Distribution Transformers Energy Conservation Standards: web updated yesterday To all Distribution Transformerstakeholders: The Department of Energy is writing to inform you that the Distribution Transformerweb site has been updated with the Final Rule, the Technical Support Document (TSD) and associated analytical spreadsheets. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercialldistribution_transformers.html Best Wishes, Antonio Bouza Building Technologies Program U.S. Department of Energy 1000 IndependenceAvenue, SW Washington DC 20585-0121 phone: 202.586.4563 antonio.bouza@ee.doe.gov



### 10/23/2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-28-1998
<CASH>                                          3,629
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 851,454
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                   651,009
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,598,786
<PP&E>                                      1,827,281
<DEPRECIATION>                                (93,330)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              3,426,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       4,938,230
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       15,452
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,903,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                3,426,067
<SALES>                                     3,061,822
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            3,061,822
<CGS>                                       2,499,931
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               5,069,429
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (37,831)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            102,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,072,691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,072,691)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,072,691)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.34)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRONTIER FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES                       EXHIBIT 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  For Three Months Ended March 31,


                                                         1997             1996
                                                      ----------      ----------
                                                      <C>              <C>
Net Income                                            $4,175,208      $3,634,974
                                                      ==========      ==========

Computation of average
shares outstanding

        Shares outstanding at
        beginning of year                              6,830,666       6,322,255

        Additional shares deemed
        outstanding because of
        stock dividends                                  479,345         917,240

        Additional shares deemed
        outstanding because of
        stock split                                            0               0

        Shares issued during the
        year times average time
        outstanding during the year                        4,891           3,993
                                                      ----------      ----------

Average shares outstanding                             7,314,902       7,243,488
                                                      ==========      ==========

Primary earnings per share                            $     0.57      $     0.50
                                                      ==========      ==========
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1069 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1069

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cases or containers for 
                                 toys.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 18, 2005

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain cases or containers for 
                                 toys.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN CASES OR CONTAINERS FOR TOYS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.42.01      Cases or            Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         containers                                                         31/2008
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         4202.92.90 and
                         not including
                         goods described
                         in heading
                         9902.01.81),
                         specially
                         designed,
                         marketed or
                         intended for
                         transporting,
                         storing or
                         protecting toys
                         or other articles
                         provided for in
                         headings 9502-
                         9504, inclusive..

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
ORIGINAL

FILED

MAR 1 8 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

State of Montana

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

HELENA, MONTANA 59620-3003

Supreme Court No.

DA 20-0126

DUANE RONALD BELANUS,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA and TIM FOX,

Respondents and Appellees.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Pursuant to authority granted under M. R. App.P. 26(1), Appellant is given an extension of time

until May 1, 2020, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant's brief.

DATED this March 18, 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Duane Ronald Belanus, Timothy Charles Fox

PO BOX 203003 • HELENA MT • 59620-3003 • TELEPHONE: (406) 444-3858 • FAX: (406) 444-5705

03/18/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0126
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7127

KENDELL C. ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 99-7540

KENDELL C. ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA99-298-PJM)

Submitted: January 11, 2000 Decided: February 8, 2000
2

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kendell C. Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Appellant Kendell C. Alexander

appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (1994) petition and reconsideration of that order. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both orders on

the reasoning of the district court. See Alexander v. United

States, No. CA-99-298-PJM (D. Md. July 27 & Sept. 30, 1999). We

deny Alexander’s motion to remand filed in No. 99-7127.

Furthermore, we deny Alexander’s motions captioned “Motion of

Expedite of Appeals” and “Motion to Strike Appellee’s Response to

Appellant’s Pro Se Informal Brief.” We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED