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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7505 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the issuance 

of nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 29, 2024 

Mr. ROSENDALE (for himself, Mr. HARRIS, Ms. BOEBERT, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. 

COLLINS, Mr. WEBER of Texas, and Mr. GAETZ) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect 

to the issuance of nonimmigrant status under section 

101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 

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 ‘‘American Worker Pro5 tection Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7505 IH

1 SEC. 2. ISSUANCE OF NONIMMIGRANT STATUS UNDER H– 

2 1B. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 214(g) of the Immigra4 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(12) Aliens who are subject to the numerical 

7 limitations of paragraph (1)(A) shall be issued visas 

8 (or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status) in the 

9 order of the highest compensation rate included in 

10 the application for such visa to the lowest compensa11 tion rate.’’. 

12 (b) RULES.—Prior to the issuance of a visa or non13 immigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for 

14 the first fiscal year following the date of the enactment 

15 of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue 

16 any rules necessary to carry out section 214(g)(9) of the 

17 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(9)), 

18 as amended by this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2015096EN.01000202.xml

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2014 — Mrs Sandra Bitter, lawyer, as insolvency administrator of Ziegelwerk Höxter GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-580/14)

(2015/C 096/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mrs Sandra Bitter, lawyer, as insolvency administrator of Ziegelwerk Höxter GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the second sentence of Article 16(3) [of Directive 2003/87/EC] (1), according to which the excess emissions penalty shall be EUR 100 for each tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted for which the operator or aircraft operator has not surrendered allowances, infringe the principle of proportionality?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 13

INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT

To the Board of Directors of
Essef Corporation
Chardon, Ohio

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of Essef
Corporation and Subsidiaries (the "Company) as of June 30, 1997, and the related
condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month and nine-month
periods ended June 30, 1997 and 1996 and the related condensed consolidated
statements of cash flows for the nine-month periods ended June 30, 1997 and
1996. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a
whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to such condensed consolidated financial statements for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of the Company as of September 30,
1996, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity,
and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our report
dated November 19, 1996, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those
consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in
the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 1996
is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated
balance sheet from which it has been derived.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
July 24, 1997

                                  Page 16 of 17
**Exhibit 32****Certifications Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)**     The undersigned, as the President and Chief Executive Officer, and Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of Exide Technologies, each certify that     (1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and     (2) the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Exide Technologies at the dates andfor the periods indicated.     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ExideTechnologies and will be retained by Exide Technologies and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.Theforegoing certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and no purchaser orseller of securities or any other person shall be entitled to relyupon the foregoing certification for any other purpose.     The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certificationexcept as required by law.     Date: August 8, 2006           /S/ Gordon A. Ulsh         Gordon A. Ulsh    President and Chief Executive Officer         /S/ Francis M. Corby, Jr.         Francis M. Corby, Jr.    Executive Vice President and    Chief Financial Officer
§ 601.35 Evaluation of safety. ( a ) Factors considered in the safety assessment of a diagnostic radiopharmaceutical include, among others, the following: ( 1 ) The radiation dose;
( 2 ) The pharmacology and toxicology of the radiopharmaceutical, including any radionuclide, carrier, or ligand;
( 3 ) The risks of an incorrect diagnostic determination;
( 4 ) The adverse reaction profile of the drug;
( 5 ) Results of human experience with the radiopharmaceutical for other uses; and
( 6 ) Results of any previous human experience with the carrier or ligand of the radiopharmaceutical when the same chemical entity as the carrier or ligand has been used in a previously studied product.
( b ) The assessment of the adverse reaction profile includes, but is not limited to, an evaluation of the potential of the diagnostic radiopharmaceutical, including the carrier or ligand, to elicit the following: ( 1 ) Allergic or hypersensitivity responses,
( 2 ) Immunologic responses,
( 3 ) Changes in the physiologic or biochemical function of the target and nontarget tissues, and
( 4 ) Clinically detectable signs or symptoms.
( c ) ( 1 ) To establish the safety of a diagnostic radiopharmaceutical, FDA may require, among other information, the following types of data: ( A ) Pharmacology data,
( B ) Toxicology data,
( C ) Clinical adverse event data, and
( D ) Radiation safety assessment.
( 2 ) The amount of new safety data required will depend on the characteristics of the product and available information regarding the safety of the diagnostic radiopharmaceutical, and its carrier or ligand, obtained from other studies and uses. Such information may include, but is not limited to, the dose, route of administration, frequency of use, half-life of the ligand or carrier, half-life of the radionuclide, and results of clinical and preclinical studies. FDA will establish categories of diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals based on defined characteristics relevant to risk and will specify the amount and type of safety data that are appropriate for each category (e.g., required safety data may be limited for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals with a well established, low-risk profile). Upon reviewing the relevant product characteristics and safety information, FDA will place each diagnostic radiopharmaceutical into the appropriate safety risk category.
( d ) *Radiation safety assessment.* The radiation safety assessment must establish the radiation dose of a diagnostic radiopharmaceutical by radiation dosimetry evaluations in humans and appropriate animal models. The maximum tolerated dose need not be established.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Richard P. Benton State of Connecticut *v.*Peter H. Brelsford

*Henry C. Campbell,*public defender, in support of the motion.

Submitted February 27

decided March *7,*1969

The motion by the defendants entitled “Motion to Review Ruling and Order on Elections of Defendants not to Commence Serving their Sentences” pending their appeals from the Superior Court in Litchfield County is denied.
Proteja su hogar y 

comunidad contra 

incendios forestales

¿Sabía usted? 

Cada año los incendios forestales queman millones de acres de tierra. 

Practique y comparta consejos de seguridad contra incendios forestales en 

su comunidad.

Puede ayudar a prepararse para la temporada de incendios forestales si 

sigue estos consejos importantes: 

ĵ Cree una zona de seguridad de hasta 100 pies 

(30.48 metros) alrededor de su hogar. 

k Elimine las agujas de pinos y hojas secas 

alrededor de su hogar. 

k Mantenga los montones de leña a una 

distancia de por lo menos 30 pies (9.144 

metros) de su hogar. 

ĵ Planifique y practique un plan de evacuación del hogar. Elabore un plan de 

comunicación familiar.

Para obtener más información y recursos gratis sobre la seguridad 

contra incendios, visite www.usfa.fema.gov.
U. S. Department of Homeland Security

 Office for Domestic Preparedness

 Washington, D.C. 20531

ODP Information Bulletin

No. 85 November 4, 2003

TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads

All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact

All Urban Areas Security Initiative Points of Contact

All ODP Training Partners

FROM: C. Suzanne Mencer

Director

SUBJECT: Prevention Guidelines for Homeland Security

On October 31, 2003 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office for Domestic

Preparedness (ODP) document entitled Prevention Guidelines for Homeland Security was made

available on the ODP web site www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp.

Prevention Guidelines for Homeland Security represents a set of general activities, objectives,

and elements to be considered in the development of prevention plans. The Prevention

Guidelines are structured around the Jurisdiction as the locus of activity and control as opposed

to previous plans which focus on each discipline separately. This document will be a valuable

tool for states and local jurisdictions in overcoming organizational stovepipes that can result

from discipline-based prevention plans.

The guidelines present the results of task analysis initiated by ODP in September 2002 with the

assistance of multi-disciplinary, multi-wave Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). The SMEs

screened, categorized and revised the comments of field professionals on the threat of terrorism.

This data was then condensed and used to develop a list of critical tasks that represent a

“‘framework of prevention’ that each Jurisdiction should consider in adapting to the exigencies

of terrorism.”

We advise the jurisdiction and state administrators to become familiar with the Prevention

Guidelines and recommend that policy makers and stakeholders focus on the tasks listed based

on their jurisdiction’s unique capabilities and resources as directed by this document.
§ 573.210 Benzoic acid. The food additive, benzoic acid, may be safely used in the manufacture of complete swine feeds in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The additive is used or intended for use as a feed acidifying agent, to lower the pH, in complete swine feeds at levels not to exceed 0.5 percent of the complete feed.
( b ) The additive consists of not less than 99.5 percent benzoic acid (CAS 65-85-0) by weight with the sum of 2-methylbiphenyl, 3-methylbiphenyl, 4-methylbiphenyl, benzyl benzoate, and isomers of dimethylbiphenyl not to exceed 0.01 percent by weight.
( c ) To assure safe use of the additive, in addition to the other information required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and paragraph (b) of this section, the label and labeling shall contain: ( 1 ) The name of the additive.
( 2 ) Adequate directions for use including a statement that benzoic acid must be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into complete swine feeds and that the complete swine feeds so treated shall be labeled as containing benzoic acid.
( 3 ) Appropriate warnings and safety precautions concerning benzoic acid.
( 4 ) A warning statement identifying benzoic acid as a possible irritant.
( 5 ) Information about emergency aid in case of accidental exposure.
( 6 ) Contact address and telephone number for reporting adverse reactions or to request a copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).
[79 FR 14176, Mar. 13, 2014]
#### Mersick Industrial Park *v.*Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of North Haven

*Howard A. Jacobs,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Lawrence J. Carboni,*for the appellee (defendant).

Argued December 2

decided December 2, 1969

It appearing that the plaintiff in the above-entitled case has failed to prosecute its appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County with proper diligence, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed.

The appellant filed a motion for reargument which was denied.
Opinion issued April 28 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 20
- 00142
- CV

——————————— IN RE TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC. , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Team Industrial Services, Inc. has filed a petition for writ of mandamus to obtain a continuance of the February 18, 2020 trial setting. 1 On

1 The underlying case is Kelli Most, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse Henson, Tracy Dunnaway, Bailey Burchett, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Damien “Craig” Burchett, and Dalton Burchett v. Team Industrial Services, Inc. , cause number 18

- DCV

- 256883, pending in the 268th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, the Honorable O'Neil Williams presiding.2

February 14, 2020, this Court issued an order staying the trial pending disposition of the petitio n. Real party in interest, Kelli Most, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse Henson, filed a response to the petition. Real party, Kelli Most and real party, Bailey Burchett, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of
D amien “Craig” Burchett, and Dalton Burchett, filed a joint motion to dismiss the petition as moot. We lift the stay and deny the petition. Any pending motions are dismissed as
moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Lloyd, and Hightower.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 6, 2 014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00406

- CV

IN RE Gerardo GONZALEZ and Claudia Gonzalez

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justic e Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On June 6, 2014, r elator s Gerry and Claudia Gonzalez filed a petition for emergency writ

of prohibition and writ of mandamus, seeking relief with respect to certain actions of the Chief of

Pol ice of the City of Laredo and the Firefighters and Police Officers’ Civil Service Commission of the City of Laredo . This court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. By statute, this co urt has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.221 (a)

- (b) ( West 2004)



### . We conclude the writs requested i n this proceedings are not necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction

. Accordingly, relator s ’ petition for emergency writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus is

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The court’s opinion will issue a t a later date.

It is so ORDERED on June 6, 2014

.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of June, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014CVZ000391D3, styled Gerardo Gonzalez and Claudia Gonzalez v. Ray Garner, in his official capacity and Firefighters and Police Officers' Ci vil Service Commission of the Ci ty of Laredo, Texas , pending in the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb Count y, Texas, the Honorable Beckie Palomo presiding.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00077

- CV

IN RE O.W. LOYD, II

On Appeal from the 402nd District Court Wood County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019

- 307

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
O.W. Loyd , II, has attempted to appeal from a May 30, 2019, order holding him in civil contempt of the 402nd Judicial District Court of Wood County. The issue before this Court is whether we have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. We conclude that we do not and dis miss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

“ An order holding a person in contempt is not one from which [a direct] appeal may be brought. ” Monasco v. Gilmer Boating & Fishing Club , No. 06

- 11

- 00132

- CV , 2012 WL 524472 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana Feb. 1, 201 2, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Ex parte Cardwell , 416 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Tex. 1967); Pandozy v. Beaty , 254 S.W.3d 613, 616 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Williams , 690 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. 1985))). Consequently, it appears
that we are with out jurisdiction over this appeal. By letter dated August 22, 2019, we informed Loyd of this potential defect in our jurisdiction and afforded him the opportunity to demonstrate proper grounds for our retention of the appeal. Loyd did not file a response to our letter. In light of the foregoing, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Scott E. Stevens Justice
Date Submitted: September 11 , 2019 Date Decided: September 12 , 2019
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4208]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES


Notice of Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-
Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank)

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 98-181, 
November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and 
to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States to Congress.

Time and Place:  Friday, March 12, 2010 beginning at 2:30 p.m. The 
meeting will be held in the Palladian Room at the Onmi Shoreham Hotel, 
2500 Calvert Street, NW., Washington, DC 20008.
    Agenda: Agenda items include a briefing on the status of the 2010 
Advisory Committee's Subcommittees and the challenges for 2010.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 
questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written 
statement(s) before or after the meeting. If any person wishes 
auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special 
accommodations, please contact, prior to March 3, 2010, Susan Houser, 
Room 1273, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 
565-3232 or TDD (202) 565-3377.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Susan 
Houser, Room 1273, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 
565-3232.

Jonathan Cordone,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-4208 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
§ 573.440 Ethylene dichloride. The food additive ethylene dichloride may be safely used in the manufacture of animal feeds in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) It is used as a solvent in the extraction processing of animal byproducts for use in animal feeds.
( b ) The maximum quantity of the additive permitted to remain in or on the extracted byproducts shall not exceed 300 parts per million.
( c ) The extracted animal byproduct is added as a source of protein to a total ration at levels consistent with good feeding practices, but in no event at levels exceeding 13 percent of the total ration.