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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 50 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 50

To designate the visitors center at the Channel Islands National Park, 
     California, as the ``Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitors Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 1995

   Mr. Gallegly (for himself, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Wolf, Mr. 
Dornan, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Cox of California, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. 
  Beilenson, Mr. Herger, Mr. Berman, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. 
Moorhead, and Mr. Doolittle) introduced the following joint resolution; 
            which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
To designate the visitors center at the Channel Islands National Park, 
     California, as the ``Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitors Center''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The visitors center at the Channel Islands National Park, 
California, is designated as the ``Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitors 
Center''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any reference in any law, regulation, document, record, map, or 
other paper of the United States to the visitors center referred to in 
section 1 is deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert J. Lagomarsino 
Visitors Center''.
                                 <all>
```
39745.

#### LUNSFORD v. CHILDS et al.

Decided January 10, 1963.

*211*Heard ■& Leverett, E. Freeman Leverett,*for plaintiff in error.

*Erwin, Birchmore & Epting, Eugene A. Epting,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

The cause of action in this case is predicated upon the alleged acts of negligence of the defendants in causing particles of sawdust to be deposited upon the plaintiff’s kitchen floor and in failing to barricade the area or otherwise give warning of the alleged dangerous condition thus created. The facts set forth in the petition disclose that these acts complained of *212occurred while the work which the plaintiff had contracted to be performed in her kitchen was still in progress and that the plaintiff’s injuries occurred when she, with actual knowledge of this fact, entered that part of the kitchen area in which the defendant Tiller was then working where she slipped and fell.

Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendants, in causing sawdust to be deposited upon the floor incidental to the installation of the molding as part of the work which they had contracted to perform and in allowing said sawdust to remain on the floor while the work was presently in progress, violated any duty which would give rise to rights in the plaintiff. Ordinary care, which is the test of the defendant’s liability in a case such as this, simply requires the exercise of due care under the circumstances, which involves a degree of caution commensurate with the danger involved. *Armor Gas Corp. v. Davis,*93 Ga. App. 563, 565 (92 SE2d 244). One is not liable for injury to another where his duty is that of ordinary care merely because of failure to exercise that degree of care which would have absolutely prevented injury. *Richardson v. Pollard,*57 Ga. App. 777 (196 SE 199).

Furthermore, it is our opinion that, irrespective of the question of defendants’ alleged negligence, the plaintiff could not recover in this case since she should have reasonably apprehended the existence of hazardous conditions in the working area and in the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety should have refrained from entering that part of her kitchen where the work was then in progress.

The trial court did not err therefore in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
#### § 1024.410 Recordkeeping.

Refer to § 1010.410 of this chapter.
#### § 19.950 Excluded Parties List System.

*Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)* means the list maintained and disseminated by the General Services Administration (GSA) containing the names and other information about persons who are ineligible. The *EPLS* system includes the printed version entitled, “List of Parties Excluded or Disqualified from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs,” so long as published.
www.gpo.gov

### §63. Consolidation of agencies

The President may, in his discretion, consolidate two or more agencies into one, and where Indians are located on reservations created by Executive order he may, with the consent of the tribes to be affected thereby, expressed in the usual manner, consolidate one or more tribes, and abolish such agencies as are thereby rendered unnecessary.

(May 17, 1882, ch. 163, §6, 22 Stat. 88; July 4, 1884, ch. 180, §6, 23 Stat. 97.)

#### Delegation of Functions

For delegation to Secretary of the Interior of authority vested in President by this section, see Ex. Ord. No. 10250, June 5, 1951, 16 F.R. 5385, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 3, The President.
#### Dzemajlje Canovic et al., Appellants, v Edward R. Palermo et al., Respondents.

[803 NYS2d 921]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated March 31, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability, the defendants raised the existence of a triable issue of fact *(see Hussain v Manhattan Cable T.V.,*308 AD2d 433 [2003]; *Rozengauz v Lok Wing Ha,*280 AD2d 534 [2001]; *Green v Hong Lee Trading,*263 AD2d 445 [1999]; *see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *cf. Irmiyayeva v Thompson,*296 AD2d 439 [2002]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### SARAH K. McLEAN, WIDOW OF NATHANIEL H. McLEAN, v. THE UNITED STATES,

[45 C. Cls. R., 95; 226 U. S. R., 374.]

*On the claimants appeal.*

An officer of the Army resigns. Congress authorize his reinstatement. After his death Congress pass a private act authorizing the accounting officers “ *to settle met adjust*” the *501claim of bis widow and allow to iier “ *all back pay and erkotUments that would have been due and payable*” to lier husband at the date of his reinstatement. The 'questions involved relate to her right to recover forage for two horses during the period the officer was out of the Army and for servants’ pay and for longevity pay.

The court below déeides:

Í. This court has jurisdiction where a private act directed the accounting officers of the Treasury “ *to settle and adjust*” an army officer’s right to bach pay and emoluments.

II.Where a private act directs the accounting officers “ *to settle and adjust"*the claim of a widow to the back pay and emoluments of her deceased husband, their duties are simply administrative, and they are not constituted a special tribunal to pass upon the matter, and their adjustment is not final.

III. The pay of an officer can be recovered in this court notwithstanding the refusal of the head of the department to recognize him as in office.

IV. The pay and emoluments or allowances of Army officers examined and stated, and the statutes and Army Regulations relating thereto reviewed.

V.An officer is entitled to an allowance for servants’ pay and to forage for horses kept. But Where he resigned and was reinstated his voluntary retirement operated to deprive him of the right to these allowances, and a statute giving his widow back pay and emoluments during the time he was out of the service does not extend to allowances for horses and servants.

VI.But under such a statute the officer's widow is entitled to commutation for additional rations and to longevity pay.

The decision, of the court below is affirmed except as to the disallowance to decedent’s widow for horses and servants during the time he was out of the service, which is reversed.

December 23, 1912.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
#### § 1021.200 General.

Casinos and card clubs are subject to the program requirements set forth and cross referenced in this subpart. Casinos and card clubs should also refer to subpart B of part 1010 of this chapter for program requirements contained in that subpart which apply to casinos and card clubs.
STATE OF MAINE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI 

GOVERNOR 

December 6, 2010 

David Conroy, Chief 

Air Programs Branch 

U.S, EPA Region I-NE 

5 Post Office Square 

Mail Code: OEP 05-2 

Boston, Ma. 02109-3912 

Dear Mr. Conroy: 

I've enclosed Maine's recently-adopted State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Regional 

Haze for your review and approval . The Maine Regional Haze SIP was posted to a 30-

day public comment period with an opportunity to request a public hearing. Public notice 

of the proposal and comment period was published in the Kennebec Journal on August 

12, 2010. The Department did not receive any comments or requests for a public hearing 

on this proposal. On December 2, 2010, the Board of Environmental Protection adopted 

the Regional Haze SIP. The Department is confident that the enclosed submission will 

satisfy all EPA requirements . 

Attachments 

1 Memorandum to the Board of Environmental Protection dated November 14, 

2007 requesting a 30-day public comment period and opportunity to request a 

,public hearing; . 

2 Copy of legal notice for 30-day public comment period and opportunity to request 

a public hearing ; 

3 State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze. Supporting attachments are 

available electronically at http ://www.maine .(-,ov/dep/ftp / DEP R1j/S1P/S1P°ro202010/; 

4 Basis Statement; 

S Memorandum to the Board of Environmental Protection dated November 18, 

2010, requesting adoption of the proposed SIP submittal; and 

BETH NAGUSKY 

ACTING COMMISSIONER 

AUGUSTA 

17 STATE HOUSE STATION BANGOR PORTLAND PRESQUE ISLE 

AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0017 106 HOGAN ROAD, SUITE 6 312 CANCO ROAD 1235 CENTRAL DRIVE, SKYWAY PARK (207) 287-7688 FAX: (207) 287-7826 BANGOR, MAINE 04401 PORTLAND, MAINE 04103 PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE 04679-2094 

RAY BLDG., HOSPITAL ST. (207) 941-4570 FAX: (207) 941-4584 (207) 822-6300 FAX: (207) 822-6303 (207) 764-0477 FAX: (207) 760-3143 

web site : www.maine .gov/dep 
6 Certification by the Attorney General that the State followed all relevant 

requirements of the Maine Administrative Procedures Act in conducting the 

public hearing and completing the submittal process. 

If you should have any questions, please contact Jeff Crawford at 207-287-2437. 

Sincerely, 

l F A"01~11 

James P. Brooks, Director 

Bureau of Air Quality 

Attachments (6) 

cc: Ann Arnold, EPA 

Jeff Crawford 

SIP file (w/encl.) 

EPA file
§ 20.605 Award. *Award* means an award of financial assistance by the Department of the Treasury or other Federal agency directly to a recipient. ( a ) The term award includes: ( 1 ) A Federal grant or cooperative agreement, in the form of money or property in lieu of money.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) The term award does not include: ( 1 ) Technical assistance that provides services instead of money.
( 2 ) Loans.
( 3 ) Loan guarantees.
( 4 ) Interest subsidies.
( 5 ) Insurance.
( 6 ) Direct appropriations.
( 7 ) Veterans' benefits to individuals (*i.e.,* any benefit to veterans, their families, or survivors by virtue of the service of a veteran in the Armed Forces of the United States).
*<*Superior Court of Cincinnati.)

General Term, 1901.

#### CIST v. THE CITY OF CINCINNATI.

A sidewalk assessment will not be sustained on appeal, _when the record shows but a single resolution, standing alone, authorizing the improvement of sidewalks in all parts of the city to be constructed of all kinds of material, as such an indiscriminate joinder of sidewalk improvements cannot be upheld.

By the Court.

This is an action to reverse the judgment of *560the court below in sustaining a sidewalk assessment. The record, by omitting the preliminary ordinance, does not present the question upon which the trial judge based his opinion in sustaining the validity of the assessment.

*P. M. Coppock,*for Plaintiff.

*L. M. Morgan,*contra

As the record is before us, we have a single resolution, standing alone, authorizing the improvement of sidewalks in all parts of the city, to be constructed of all kinds of material. We are of the opinion that such an indiscrininate joinder of sidewalk improvements can not be upheld. Whether each sidewalk must have a separate resolution, or whether there may be a classification of sidewalks, are questions not necessarily presented by the record, and upon which we express no opinion.

Judgment reversed.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 202.5 Previously designated depositaries.

A depositary previously designated will, by the acceptance or retention of deposits, be presumed to have assented to all the terms and provisions of this part and to the retention of collateral security theretofore pledged.

[32 FR 14215, Oct. 13, 1967]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 215.8 Withholding certificates.

Each agency may require employees or members of the Armed Forces under its jurisdiction to complete a withholding certificate in order to calculate the amount to be withheld. The agency shall use the withholding certificate which the State, city or county has prescribed. Where the State, city or county has not prescribed a certificate, the agency may use a certificate approved by the Department of the Treasury. The agency may rely on the information in the certificate. Copies of completed certificates shall be provided to the taxing authority by agencies upon request.

[42 FR 33731, July 1, 1977. Redesignated at 71 FR 2150, Jan. 13, 2006]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FIL ED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PETER EDWIN BERNAT, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D15-3032 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) )

Opinion filed October 5, 2016.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Thomas S. Reese, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,
and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi , Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Mr. Bernat's convicti on and sentence without prejudi ce to his

raising his claim of ineffectiv e assistance of counsel in a mot ion for postconviction relief

pursuant to Florida Rule of C riminal Procedure 3.850.

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
#### § 403.37 Form of the petition.

There is no standardized form provided or required by the Department of the Treasury for use in filing a petition for remission or mitigation of forfeiture. However, the petition should be typewritten on legal size paper; and must be executed under oath, prepared in triplicate, and addressed to the District Director of the internal revenue district in which the property was seized. All copies of original documents submitted as exhibits in support of allegations of the petition should be certified as true and accurate copies of originals. Each copy of the petition must contain a complete set of exhibits.
#### § 128.11 Purpose of reports.

Reports on international capital transactions and positions provide timely and reliable information on international portfolio capital movements by U.S. persons. This information is needed for preparation of the capital accounts of the United States balance of payments and the international investment position of the United States.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 14, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 14, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21A0738. JAMISON ONIS CORLEY v. KIMBERLY MARIE JACKSON.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion the hereby GRANTED, and jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1261

To provide for duty free treatment for entries and withdrawals of tamoxifen

citrate after December 31, 1993, and before January 1, 1995.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1995

Mr. MOAKLEY (for himself, Mr. RANGEL, Mrs. KENNELLY, Mrs. MEYERS of

Kansas, Ms. PRYCE, and Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for duty free treatment for entries and withdrawals of tamoxifen citrate after December 31, 1993, and

before January 1, 1995.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DUTY FREE TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ENTRIES

4 AND WITHDRAWALS.

5 Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of

6 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon

7 a request filed with the Customs Service before the 90th

8 day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry

9 or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of
2

•HR 1261 IH

1 tamoxifen citrate (provided for in subheading 2922.19.10

2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States,

3 as in effect on December 1, 1994)—

4 (1) which was made after December 31, 1993,

5 and before January 1, 1995, and

6 (2) with respect to which there would have been

7 no duty if such entry or withdrawal had been made

8 on or after January 1, 1995,

9 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry

10 or withdrawal had been made on or after January 1, 1995.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michelle Hudson, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 94]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach, J.), rendered June 23, 2003, convicting her of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenges to the trial court’s jury instructions are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to review those issues as a matter of discretion in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]).

The defense counsel, who presented a convincing affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance which resulted in a jury verdict convicting the defendant of the lesser crime of man*582slaughter in the first degree instead of murder in the second degree, provided the defendant with meaningful representation *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 714 [1998]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
TECHNOLOGY EMPOWERING 

the LODGING INDUSTRY 

I 

'^KETOPERAtiONS 

•m on 9q A 11. iQ bor'Oi>r'mS'QPcv 

October 26,2010 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis X-53 

400 7*^ Street SW 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

RE: Airline service in Dicldnson, NO 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

This letter is in response to the Essential Air Service bid for the Dickinson Theodore Roosevelt Regional 

Airport. Please note my endorsement for the proposed bid to allow Great Lakes Airlines to operate 

eighteen round trips to Dickinson. 

In June of this year, our Phoenix based company, Multi-Systems, Inc., purchased REMco Software, 

located in Dickinson, ND. We send executives from the Phoenix office to the Dickinson office monthly 

and have found our travel options from Phoenix to be very limited. We also have executives from 

REMco travel to Phoenix on a regular basis. Having reliable and convenient airline transportation to and 

from our two offices is vital to the continued success of our companies. Adding additional travel options 

wouM greatly benefit our ability to do business. 

Thank you for considerir)g the EAS bid. I am looking forward to a favorable outcome. 

Sincerely, 

Richard D. Munson, CEO 

Multi-Systems, Inc. 

RDM:kg 

Cc: Matthew Remynse 

Dickinson Airport 

7600 North 15th Street Suite #250 • Phoenix, AZ 85020 . (800) 331-7890 . (602) 870-4200 . fax: (602) 861-3711 

www.msisolutions.com • c-mail: info@msisolutions.com
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE C TI O N AGENC Y WASHI N GTO N , D . C . 20 460

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

### MEMORANDUM Subject: F r o m: To: ummary of take h older Mee tin gs Ca ri ssa Cyran D ockets EPA- II Q -O AR-20 1 3
- 0602 . EPA- HQ-O AR-20 1 3
- 0603. a nd EPA-HQOAR-20 1 3 -04 95 Thi s memorandum s ummari zes meetin gs w ith stake ho l ders during the week of Jun e 8 , 2015. On June 9. Actin g Ass istant Ad ministrator l o r A ir and Radiation Jan e t McCabe and Associate Assistant Adminis trator fo r C limate and enior Co un se l for Air and R a diation Jo se ph GotTman s p o ke w ith Tom Lawler. On Jun e 9 , Acti n g Assistant Adm ini s trato r lor A ir and Radiation J a ne t McCabe and Associa t e Assis tan t Administrato r for C limate and Seni o r Co un se l for A ir and Radiation J oseph Goffm a n m e t w ith Michael Bradley. Pr es ident of M.J. Bradley and Associates LLC. On Jun e 9. A dmini s trator Gina McCarth y . Act in g Ass is tant Admi ni s trator for A ir and R adiati on Jan e t Mc Cabe a nd Associate Ass istant A dminis tra to r lor Climate and Senior Co un se l for A ir a nd Radiation Jo s eph Goffman met with Greg Abe l of B e rk s hire Hathaway Energy.

Internet Address ( URL J • hllp //www epa gov Re c y c l ed / R ec yc lable • Pnnted W•th Vegetable Otl Based Inks on 100"• Postconsumer Process Chlo,ne Free Recycled Paper
#### § 44.4906-1 Cross reference.

For provisions relating to the applicability of Federal and State laws, see section 4422 and § 44.4422-1.