alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 131

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Establishing procedures making the transmission of

Congressional Budget Office.dated economic and technical assumptions of thePresident of a 7-year balanced budget using upPresident contingent upon the submission by thethe continuing resolution (H.J. Res. 134) to the
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 131

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE.

4 The Committee on House Oversight (pursuant to

5 clause 4(d)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Rep-
2

•HCON 131 EH

1 resentatives) shall not present to the President the joint

2 resolution (H.J. Res. 134) making further continuing ap3 propriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other pur4 poses, until the Speaker of the House notifies that com5 mittee that the requirements of this concurrent resolution

6 have been met.

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

8 BUDGET.

9 The Speaker shall submit to the Committee on House

10 Oversight the notification described in section 1 only if

11 the following conditions have been satisfied:

12 (1) The President has submitted to the Con13 gress a plan to achieve a balanced total budget not

14 later than fiscal year 2002, which includes the fol15 lowing:

16 (A) The proposed text of a budget plan for

17 fiscal year 1996 and each fiscal year thereafter

18 through fiscal year 2002 that includes total new

19 budget authority and budget outlays, total Fed20 eral revenues, and new budget authority and

21 budget outlays for each major functional cat22 egory, including a breakdown between discre23 tionary and mandatory spending within each

24 such category.
3

•HCON 131 EH

1 (B) The proposed text of legislation to im2 plement the budget described in subparagraph

3 (A).

4 (C) A detailed summary setting forth the

5 policies underlying the budget described in sub6 paragraph (A) and the proposed legislation de7 scribed in subparagraph (B).

8 (2) The Director of the Congressional Budget

9 Office has certified in writing to the Speaker of the

10 House and the President pro tempore of the Senate

11 that the plan described in paragraph (1) achieves a

12 balanced total budget not later than fiscal year

13 2002, as estimated by the Director using the eco14 nomic and technical assumptions specified in or con15 sistent with the congressional Budget Office Memo16 randum entitled ‘‘The Economic and Budget Out17 look: December 1995 Update’’.
4

•HCON 131 EH

1 SEC. 3. SUBMISSION OF COPY OF CONCURRENT RESOLU2 TION TO PRESIDENT.

3 Upon the adoption of this concurrent resolution, the

4 Clerk of the House of Representatives shall transmit a

5 copy to the President.

Passed the House of Representatives January 5,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 2947 Duttons Mill Road, Suite A-1, Aston, PA 19014, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                               ( print page 40832)    *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov*. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​*.                    

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on June 11, 2009. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony Malana, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

Dated: August 4, 2009.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. E9-19387 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 184 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 184

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
 further protect religious freedom, including the right of students in 
public schools to pray without government sponsorship or compulsion, by 
     clarifying the proper construction of any prohibition on laws 
                respecting an establishment of religion.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 16, 1996

Mr. Armey introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
 further protect religious freedom, including the right of students in 
public schools to pray without government sponsorship or compulsion, by 
     clarifying the proper construction of any prohibition on laws 
                respecting an establishment of religion.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``In order to secure the right of the people to acknowledge and 
serve God according to the dictates of conscience, neither the United 
States nor any State shall deny any person equal access to a benefit, 
or otherwise discriminate against any person, on account of religious 
belief, expression, or exercise. This amendment does not authorize 
government to coerce or inhibit religious belief, expression, or 
exercise.''.
                                 <all>
```
www.gpo.gov

### §282h. Loans to or from International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; amendment to Articles of Agreement

The United States Governor of the Corporation is authorized to agree to the amendments of the articles of agreement of the Corporation to remove the prohibition therein contained against the Corporation lending to or borrowing from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and to place limitations on such borrowing.

(Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 788, §10, as added Pub. L. 89–126, §2, Aug. 14, 1965, 79 Stat. 519.)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reggie Eugene HICKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6486.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 4, 2002.

Decided June 21, 2002.

Reggie Eugene Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Reggie Eugene Hicks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Hicks,*Nos. CR-99-316, CA-01-235 (E.D.Va. Jan. 11, 2002). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-27-2012 

# I n R e: An thon

y Lionett i

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 11-3880

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: An thon

y L ione tt i " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1518. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/1518

### 1 AMENDED HLD
- 001 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 1

- 3880

___________ IN RE: ANTHONY LIONETTI , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to Civ. No. 10

- cv - 4720 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. November 3, 2011 Before: Chief Judge MCKEE, ALDISERT and GARTH , Circuit Judges (Opi nion filed : January 27, 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM On October 26, 2011, Anthony Lionetti filed a petition fo r a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the District Court to act on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On November 18, 2 011, the Di strict Court denied Lionetti’s § 2255 motion. Thus , his request for an order directing the District Court to act on his motion is

now moot.

### 2 Lionetti also requests the recusal of the District Court Judge. While mandamus is available to review a District Court ’ s refusal to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), 1



### For the above reasons, the m andamus petition will be denied see Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc. , 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir. 1993), Lionetti did not move for recusal in the District Court. Thus, he is not entitled to mandamus relief on that g round.

1 

### Sectio n 455(a) provides that a judge “ shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND FOR THE
THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       4,197,072
<SECURITIES>                                35,575,721
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,462,197
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,444,426
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,331,353
<PP&E>                                      18,871,266
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,899,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,701,822
<BONDS>                                      2,919,698
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       23,668,257
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       338,311
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,270,992
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,899,140
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,826,807
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,354,031
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             100,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,675,912)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,675,912)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,675,912)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
Amendment to Executive Emplaoyment Agreement - Bob Fugerer



 Exhibit 10.24 
 January 25, 2007 
 Bob Fugerer 
 4819 Sky blue
Drive 
 Lutz, FL 33558 
  

	 	Re:	Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement 

 Dear John: 
 This document is intended to memorialize the amendment of your Employment Agreement, dated July 10, 2006. 
 Our signatures below confirm that we have agreed to modify the Employment Agreement in Sections 1 and 4 (a) and 4(b) only as described below as
follows: 
  

	1.	EMPLOYMENT; DUTIES. 

 The provision, as originally written
has been deleted in its entirety and is amended to read as follows: 
 The Company shall employ Executive as President and Chief Technological Officer, and
Executive accepts such employment under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Executive’s duties shall be consistent with those of such a position as defined from time to time by the Company’s board of directors (the
“Board”) and the Chief Executive Officer. 
  

	 	4.	COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS 

 (a) Base Salary 
 The provision, as originally written has been deleted in its entirety and is amended to read as follows: 
 Executive’s Base Salary shall be, effective January 1, 2007, in the amount of $150,000 per year. Executive’s base salary shall be reviewed annually in conjunction with Executive’s annual
performance review and may be adjusted as appropriate in light of Executive’s performance. Executive’s annual base salary shall be paid in accordance with the standard payroll practices of the Company. 
 (b) Incentive compensation. 
 The provision, as originally
written has been deleted in its entirety and is amended to read as follows: 
  

	 	i.	The Company shall pay the executive a one time signing bonus of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) plus two million shares of the common stock of the Company.


  

	 	ii.	A quarterly payment of five hundred thousand (500,000) shares of restricted common stock of the company. 

 Executive acknowledges that the signing bonus in Section 4(b) (i) was paid in full during 2006. 
 (signature page follows) 








					
	APPROVED AND AGREED:	 		 	
			
	DATE: 1/25/07	 		 	Bob Fugerer
		 		 	
		 		 	/s/ Bob Fugerer
		 		 	

  

					
	DATE: 1/25/07	 		 	Sun Energy Solar, Inc.
			
	 	 		 	/s/ Carl L. Smith
		 		 	Carl L. Smith
		 		 	 Chairman and Chief Executive
     Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Damien Carrington, Appellant.

[802 NYS2d 688]

*178Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered February 13, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years on the assault conviction consecutive to concurrent terms of 25 years, 15 years and 7 years on the remaining convictions, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The detective who arrested defendant in Atlanta had probable cause to do so pursuant to the “fellow-officer rule” since he was acting at the direction of New York City police who clearly had probable cause based on information provided by eyewitnesses to the crime *(see People v Ramirez-Portoreal,*88 NY2d 99, 113 [1996] ). Defendant argues that the actual basis for his arrest was an unrelated New York warrant, which later proved to be invalid in that it had already been vacated. However, since the record objectively demonstrates the existence of probable cause, it is immaterial that the Atlanta detective subjectively believed that he could not effect an arrest without a warrant, and did not arrest defendant until after the New York police transmitted a copy of the invalid warrant at issue *(see e.g. People v Robinson,*271 AD2d 17, 24 [2000], *affd*97 NY2d 341 [2001]; *People v Jones,*219 AD2d 417, 421 [1996], *affd*90 NY2d 835 [1997] ; *People v Wheeler,*123 AD2d 411 [1986], *Iv denied*68 NY2d 1005 [1986]). Moreover, the Atlanta detective’s request for a warrant was purely administrative rather than legal; he was a member of a fugitive unit that dealt only with warrants, and was required to refer to a different Atlanta command any requests for assistance regarding possible warrantless arrests. In any event, even if the arrest in Atlanta was based solely on the invalid warrant, the conduct of the lineup and subsequent statements, other than statements to the arresting officer, were sufficiently attenuated.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Sullivan, J.E, Ellerin, Williams, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
#### WILLIAM G. HANNUM v. THE UNITED STATES.

[43 C. Cls. R., 320; 226 U. S. R., 436.]

*On the claimant'’s appeal.*

An officer is retired from active service on one-half the pay to which' he would be entitled if on leave of absence on the active list. This enforced retirement is upon the decision of a retiring board, in conformity with the provisions of the Revised Statutes (§ 1454).

*505The court below decides:

I. The *Navy Personnel Act 3d March, 1899*{30 Stat. L., p. 1007, § 13), provides that officers of the Navy shall receive the same pay and allowances which are provided by law for officers of corresponding rank in the Army. But this refers to officers of the Navy on the active list and does not extend to officers who were retired because of their own misconduct.

II. The pay of naval officers on the retired list is regulated by the Revised Statutes (§ 1593, etc.).

The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

January 6, 1913.

Mr. Chief Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
§ 31.6652(c)-1 Failure of employee to report tips for purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. ( a ) *In general.* In the case of failure by an employee to furnish, pursuant to the provisions of section 6053(a), to his employer a report of tips received by him in the course of his employment, which constitute wages (as defined in section 3121(a)), there shall be paid by the employee, in addition to the tax imposed by section 3101 with respect to the amount of tips which he so failed to report, an amount equal to 50 percent of such tax. The additional amount imposed for such failure shall be paid in the same manner as tax upon notice and demand by the district director.
( b ) *Reasonable cause.* Payment of an amount equal to 50 percent of the tax imposed by section 3101 with respect to the tips which the employee failed to report will not be required if it is established to the satisfaction of the district director or the director of the regional service center that such failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. An affirmative showing of reasonable cause must be made in the form of a written statement, containing a declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, setting forth all the facts alleged as a reasonable cause. An employee's reluctance to disclose to his employer the amount of tips received by him will not establish that the employee's failure to report tips to his employer was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.
[T.D. 7001, 34 FR 1005, Jan. 23, 1969]