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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 111 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 111

  Authorizing the printing of a report to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, prepared by the Congressional Task Force on 
                          Immigration Reform.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 26, 1995

 Mr. Gallegly submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the printing of a report to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, prepared by the Congressional Task Force on 
                          Immigration Reform.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That there shall be printed as a House document a report to the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives, prepared by the Congressional Task 
Force on Immigration Reform, dated June 29, 1995. In lieu of the usual 
number, there shall be printed the lesser of--
            (1) 2,000 copies of the report, of which a sufficient 
        number shall be copies required for the normal distribution of 
        a House document to depository libraries, 25 copies shall be 
        for the use of the House of Representatives, 25 copies shall be 
        for the use of the Senate, and the remaining copies shall be 
        for the use of the Congressional Task Force on Immigration 
        Reform; or
            (2) such number of copies as does not exceed a total 
        production and printing cost of $12,500, with distribution for 
        the use of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the 
        Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform to be allocated 
        in the same proportion as described in paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
§ 1.168(a)-1 Modified accelerated cost recovery system. ( a ) Section 168 determines the depreciation allowance for tangible property that is of a character subject to the allowance for depreciation provided in section 167(a) and that is placed in service after December 31, 1986 (or after July 31, 1986, if the taxpayer made an election under section 203(a)(1)(B) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986; 100 Stat. 2143). Except for property excluded from the application of section 168 as a result of section 168(f) or as a result of a transitional rule, the provisions of section 168 are mandatory for all eligible property. The allowance for depreciation under section 168 constitutes the amount of depreciation allowable under section 167(a). The determination of whether tangible property is property of a character subject to the allowance for depreciation is made under section 167 and the regulations under section 167.
( b ) This section is applicable on and after February 27, 2004.
[T.D. 9314, 72 FR 9248, Mar. 1, 2007]
SCAD-16-0000523
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner,

vs. WILLIAM T. MARTINEZ, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC Case No. 15-034-9253)
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C
. J
. , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J
. )

Upon consideration of the December 20, 2016 affidavit submitted by Respondent William T. Martinez and the record, it appears Respondent Martinez has complied with the terms of his suspension. We further note Respondent Martinez has averred he intends to comply in a timely manner with the requirement he pay $2,417.00 in restitution to his former client. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.17(b), Respondent Martinez is reinstated to the practice of law in the jurisdiction of the State of Hawai # i, effective upon entry of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 5, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-16-0000523 05-JAN-2017 01:17 PM
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsUAS Reports (UREPs): EnablingExchange of Observation Data Between UAS OperationsAs the volume of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operations increases, the lack of weather products to support these operations becomes more problematic. One early solution to obtaining more information about weather conditions is to allow operators to share their observations and measurements with other airspace users. This is analogous to the AIREP and PIREP reporting systems in traditional aviation wherein pilots report weather phenomena they have observed or experienced to provide better situational awareness to other pilots. Given the automated nature of the small (under 55 lbs.) UAS platforms and operations, automated reporting of relevant information should also be supported. To promote automated exchange of these data, a well-defined data schema needs to be established along with the mechanisms for sending and retrieving the data. This paper examines this concept and offers an initial definition of the necessary elements to allow for immediate implementation and use.Document ID20170003878Acquisition SourceAmes Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRios, Joseph*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA United States)*Smith, David*(SGT, Inc. Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Smith, Irene*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA United States)*Date AcquiredApril 25, 2017Publication DateFebruary 1, 2017Subject CategoryAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2017-219462ARC-E-DAA-TN39254Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NNA14AA60CDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.KeywordsUASUTMaviation weather reportingAvailable DownloadsNameType20170003878.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
H. Con. Res. 131 Agreed to January 5, 1996

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

Concurrent Resolution

Establishing procedures making the transmission of the continuing resolution (H.J.

Res. 134) to the President contingent upon the submission by the President

of a 7-year balanced budget using updated economic and technical assumptions

of the Congressional Budget Office.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE.

The Committee on House Oversight (pursuant to clause 4(d)(1)

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives) shall not

present to the President the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 134) making

further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and

for other purposes, until the Speaker of the House notifies that

committee that the requirements of this concurrent resolution have

been met.

SEC. 2. PRESIDENT’S SUBMISSION OF 7-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET.

The Speaker shall submit to the Committee on House Oversight

the notification described in section 1 only if the following conditions

have been satisfied:

(1) The President has submitted to the Congress a plan

to achieve a balanced total budget not later than fiscal year

2002, which includes the following:

(A) The proposed text of a budget plan for fiscal year

1996 and each fiscal year thereafter through fiscal year

2002 that includes total new budget authority and budget

outlays, total Federal revenues, and new budget authority

and budget outlays for each major functional category,

including a breakdown between discretionary and mandatory spending within each such category.

(B) The proposed text of legislation to implement the

budget described in subparagraph (A).

(C) A detailed summary setting forth the policies

underlying the budget described in subparagraph (A) and

the proposed legislation described in subparagraph (B).

(2) The Director of the Congressional Budget Office has

certified in writing to the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate that the plan described in

paragraph (1) achieves a balanced total budget not later than

fiscal year 2002, as estimated by the Director using the economic and technical assumptions specified in or consistent with

the congressional Budget Office Memorandum entitled ‘‘The

Economic and Budget Outlook: December 1995 Update’’.
H. Con. Res.131—2

SEC. 3. SUBMISSION OF COPY OF CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO

PRESIDENT.

Upon the adoption of this concurrent resolution, the Clerk

of the House of Representatives shall transmit a copy to the President.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
# C_2015007EN.01006002.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/60

---

Action brought on 31 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-127/14)

(2015/C 007/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application to annul the Commission’s decision refusing to re-calculate the bonus on the application’s pension rights acquired in the European Union pension scheme pursuant to the new general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 27 January 2014 rejecting the applicant’s request, made on 6 January 2014, for re-calculation of the years of pensionable service credited following the transfer of his pension rights from the German pension system to the Community pension scheme; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 27 January 2014 rejecting the applicant’s request, made on 6 January 2014, for re-calculation of the years of pensionable service credited following the transfer of his pension rights from the German pension system to the Community pension scheme;

| — | Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings, irrespective of the outcome of the action, on the grounds that the response to the request was so ill-adapted to it that the applicant was obliged, in order to obtain a genuine examination of the complaints he submitted, to bring legal action. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings, irrespective of the outcome of the action, on the grounds that the response to the request was so ill-adapted to it that the applicant was obliged, in order to obtain a genuine examination of the complaints he submitted, to bring legal action.

---
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsModel Based Mission Assurance in a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Framework: State-of-the-Art AssessmentThis report explores the current state of the art of Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) in projects that have shifted towards Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). Its goal is to provide insight into how NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) should respond to this shift. In MBSE, systems engineering information is organized and represented in models: rigorous computer-based representations, which collectively make many activities easier to perform, less error prone, and scalable. S&MA practices must shift accordingly. The “Objective Structure Hierarchies” recently developed by OSMA provide the framework for understanding this shift. Although the objectives themselves will remain constant, S&MA practices (activities, processes, tools) to achieve them are subject to change. This report presents insights derived from literature studies and interviews. The literature studies gleaned assurance implications from reports of space-related applications of MBSE. The interviews with knowledgeable S&MA and MBSE personnel discovered concerns and ideas for how assurance may adapt. Preliminary findings and observations are presented on the state of practice of S&MA with respect to MBSE, how it is already changing, and how it is likely to change further. Finally, recommendations are provided on how to foster the evolution of S&MA to best fit with MBSE.Document ID20170005538Acquisition SourceJet Propulsion LaboratoryDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsSteven L Cornford*(Jet Propulsion Laboratory La Cañada Flintridge, United States)*Martin S Feather*(Jet Propulsion Laboratory La Cañada Flintridge, United States)*Date AcquiredJune 13, 2017Publication DateAugust 1, 2016Publication InformationPublisher: National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationSubject CategoryQuality Assurance And ReliabilityReport/Patent NumberJPL-Publ-17-26JPL-D-97731NASA/CR-2016-219272Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NNN12AA01CWBS: 724297.30.31.11TASK: 30.31.13PROJECT: 105140Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.KeywordsAerospace engineeringAssuranceModelsQualityReliabilitySafetySystems engineeringAvailable DownloadsNameType20170005538_Redacted.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.3110 Antimony test system. ( a ) *Identification.* An antimony test system is a device intended to measure antimony, a heavy metal, in urine, blood, vomitus, and stomach contents. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of antimony poisoning.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I.
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, Leonard Osser, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Milestone Scientific Inc. (“theRegistrant”).2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluations; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 13, 2007                                                      /s/ Leonard Osser   Leonard Osser   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  
22
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-79,208-02

EX PARTE JOSEPH EARL LOVELY, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 29110 IN THE 3rd DISTRICT COURT

FROM ANDERSON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of unlawful

possession of a firearm by a felon and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file a notice of appeal. 

The record before this Court reflects that counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. 

Therefore, we find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the

judgment of conviction in Cause No. 29110 from the 3rd District Court of Anderson County. 
2

Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he

may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. Within ten days of the issuance of

this opinion, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent

and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to

represent Applicant on direct appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been

imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant

desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the

trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: July 24, 2013

Do not publish
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1703

___________

Ronald Payton, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Community Counseling Services, Inc., *

*

Appellant. *

__________ Appeals from the United States

District Court for the Western

No. 00-1831 District of Arkansas.

__________

 [UNPUBLISHED]

Ronald Payton, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Community Counseling Services, Inc., *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2001

Filed: March 22, 2001 

___________
*The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

**The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

-2-

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and PERRY,* District

Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Community Counseling Services, Inc. (CCS) terminated Ronald Payton's

employment as a business manager after Payton was diagnosed with Parkinson's

disease and depression. Payton brought this disability discrimination action against

CCS, and a jury concluded CCS intentionally discriminated against Payton and

awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages. The district court** granted Payton's

postverdict motion for equitable relief, awarding front pay instead of reinstatement

based on the circumstances. The district court also granted Payton's request for

attorney fees, but awarded only about two-thirds of the amount requested because

Payton did not prevail on all claims and the amount sought for pre-complaint services

and discovery was excessive. On appeal, CCS first argues there was insufficient

evidence to support the verdict because Payton was not a qualified individual with a

disability and could not perform essential job functions. Having carefully reviewed the

record, we conclude the jury could reasonably find otherwise. CCS also asserts the

district court committed error in refusing to allow CCS to impeach Payton with his

earlier deposition testimony. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding

the evidence as cumulative, and any error was harmless. With respect to the

postverdict motion, CCS contends the district court should have awarded reinstatement

rather than front pay, and in his cross-appeal, Payton contends the district court should

have awarded the full amount of attorney fees requested. The district court applied the
-3-

controlling law to the facts of the case, and did not abuse its discretion. We thus affirm

the district court. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.