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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3308 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3308

 To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to convert the dairy forward 
     pricing program into a permanent program of the Department of 
                              Agriculture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 16, 2003

Mr. Dooley of California (for himself, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Boehner, Mr. 
   Ose, Mr. Janklow, Mr. Rush, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Kirk, Mr. 
  Manzullo, Mr. Souder, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Ford, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. 
Sessions, Mr. Kind, and Mr. Petri) introduced the following bill; which 
              was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to convert the dairy forward 
     pricing program into a permanent program of the Department of 
                              Agriculture.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT DAIRY FORWARD PRICING PROGRAM.

    Section 23 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 627), 
reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 
of 1937, is amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by striking ``PILOT'';
            (2) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 
                ``Pilot''; and
                    (B) by striking ``Not later than'' and all that 
                follows through ``temporary pilot program'' and 
                inserting ``The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct, 
                as a permanent program of the Department of 
                Agriculture, a program'';
            (3) in subsection (c)--
                    (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 
                ``Pilot''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``pilot''; and
            (4) by striking subsections (d) and (e).
                                 <all>
```
#### § 390.312 Subordinated debt security.

The term *subordinated debt security* means any unsecured note, debenture, or other debt security issued by a State savings association and subordinated on liquidation to all claims having the same priority as account holders or any higher priority.
#### § 603.350 Criminal penalties.

Section 552a (i)(3) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(3)) makes it a misdemeanor, subject to a maximum fine of $5,000, to knowingly and willfully request or obtain any record concerning any individual from an agency under false pretenses. Sections 552a (i) (1) and (2) of the Act (5 U.S.C. 552a (i) (1), (2)) provide penalties for violation by agency employees of the Act or regulations established thereunder.

[40 FR 40454, Sept. 2, 1975, as amended at 71 FR 54900, Sept. 20, 2006]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           21736
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4594
<ALLOWANCES>                                       897
<INVENTORY>                                       1370
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 33700
<PP&E>                                          285704
<DEPRECIATION>                                   53326
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  400389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            40966
<BONDS>                                         164000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           163
<OTHER-SE>                                      163568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    400389
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                168818
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    78448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 69755
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               11111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9536
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3719
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5817
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5817
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1****Certification of Principal Executive Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350****(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**I, H. Thomas Watkins, Chief Executive Officer (principalexecutive officer) of Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (the“Registrant”), certify, to the best of my knowledge,based upon a review of the Annual Report onForm 10-K for theperiod ended December 31, 2005 of the Registrant(the “Report”), that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Registrant.     /s/ H. Thomas Watkins           Name: H. Thomas Watkins     Date: March 14, 2006
Editorial Note on Part 708b
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 708b appear at 84 FR 1607, Feb. 5, 2019, and at 85 FR 62213, Oct. 2, 2020.

§ 708b.102 Special provisions for federal insurance. ( a ) Where the continuing credit union is federally insured, the NCUSIF will assess a deposit and a prorated insurance premium (unless waived in whole or in part for all insured credit unions during that year) on the additional share accounts insured as a result of the merger of a non-federally insured or uninsured credit union with a federally insured credit union.
( b ) Where the continuing credit union is non-federally insured or uninsured but desires to be federally insured as of the date of the merger, it must submit an application to the appropriate Regional Director when the merging credit union requests approval of the merger proposal. If the Regional Director approves the merger, the NCUSIF will assess a deposit and a prorated insurance premium (unless waived in whole or in part for all insured credit unions during that year) on any additional share accounts insured as a result of the merger.
( c ) Where the continuing credit union is non-federally insured or uninsured and does not make application for insurance, but the merging credit union is federally insured, the continuing credit union is entitled to a refund of the merging credit union's NCUSIF deposit and to a refund of the unused portion of the NCUSIF share insurance premium (if any). If the continuing credit union is uninsured, the NCUSIF will make the refund only after expiration of the one-year period of continued insurance coverage noted in paragraph (e) of this section.
( d ) Where the continuing credit union is non-federally insured, NCUSIF insurance of the member accounts of a merging federally insured credit union ceases as of the effective date of the merger.
( e ) Where the continuing credit union is uninsured, NCUSIF insurance of the member accounts of the merging federally insured credit union will continue for a period of one year, subject to the restrictions in section 206(d)(1) of the Act.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19894-2 Filed:01/24/22 Entered:0

Envelope Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10(b)

                  AMENDMENT TO THE J. C. PENNCY COMPANY, INC.
                           BENEFIT RESTORATION PLAN


         Effective as of March 22, 2001, the term "Benefit Plans Review
Committee" is deleted and the term "Human Resources and Compensation Committee"
is substituted therefor in each place in which it appears.
221123 EXHIBIT B. WITNESS COVER SHEET VERSION NOVEMBER 23, 2022 1

EXHIBIT B1

PARTY WITNESS COVER SHEET

Name of Party 

Does the Party intend to offer a witness? 

Total Number of Witnesses

Witness Name Expert or Fact 

Witness

Is interpreter 

required?

(Proponent of 

witness must 

provide 

certified 

interpreter)* 

Scope of Testimony

*The Court does not provide interpreters for witness testimony. 

 1 This Party Witness Cover Sheet must be attached to a party-in-interest’s Informative 

Motion as Exhibit B.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22907-2 Filed:11/23/22 Entered:11/23/22 13:04:03 Desc:

Exhibit B - Witness Cover Sheet Page 1 of 1
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDesign study of magnetic eddy-current vibration suppression dampers for application to cryogenic turbomachineryCryogenic turbomachinery used to pump high pressure fuel (liquid H2) and oxidizer (liquid O2) to the main engines of the Space Shuttle have experienced rotor instabilities. Subsynchronous whirl, an extremely destructive instability, has caused bearing failures and severe rubs in the seals. These failures have resulted in premature engine shutdowns or, in many instances, have limited the power level to which the turbopumps could be operated. The feasibility of using an eddy current type of damping mechanism for the Space Shuttle Main Engine is outlined.Document ID19840008494Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsGunter, E. J.*(Virginia Univ. Charlottesville, VA, United States)*Humphris, R. R.*(Virginia Univ. Charlottesville, VA, United States)*Severson, S. J.*(Virginia Univ. Charlottesville, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1983Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-173273NAS 1.26:173273UVA/52810/MAE84/101Accession Number84N16562Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-263Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840008494.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
Order entered February 13, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00955-CV

ELYAHOU LAVIZADEH AND PARVANEH LAVIZADEH, TRUSTEES OF THE 

ELYAHOU AND PARVANEH LAVIZADEH TRUST 2004, Appellants

V.

ALI A. MOGHADAM, Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-06627

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s February 11, 2019 unopposed motion for extension of time 

to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellee’s brief due March 25, 2019. 

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
#### PHEBE DUNBAR v. ANNANIAS DUNBAR.

Divorce — conduct of the petitioner — binding prosecutor over for adultery.

When it appears the petitioner has been several years living with a person who is in court conducting her prosecution, and had children by him, the bill will be dismissed, though the husband has also married another wife.

A witness or party who appears in court to have committed a crime against the laws, may be ordered into custody, examined, and recognized to appear before the Common Pleas for trial.

Divorce. Cause, wilful absence. This suit was conducted at the instance of a man by the name of Keeler, by *Williams,*for the petitioner. The evidence introduced proved the absence of the *287defendant, and that for six or seven years last past, he lived at the Bayou Sarah, in the’ lower Mississippi, and had married there. It appeared in evidence also, that for six or seven years, the petitioner had been living with Keeler as his wife, and had children by him.

The Court inquired of the counsel if he prosecuted the inquiry further?

*Williams*— No, I was unacquainted with the facts.

By the Court.

The bill is dismissed. The sheriff will take charge of Keeler, who is in court, until we have leisure to examine into this charge against him for adultery.

The prosecuting attorney was then sent for, and an examination had before the Court, and Keeler recognized to appear at the next Court of Common Pleas, to answer the charge of adultery.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20071

JOSEPH CHHIM,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-2483

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Chhim sought relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 for retaliation and discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national 

origin. The district court dismissed the suit, denied Chhim’s motion for 

reconsideration, and denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on 

appeal, certifying that any appeal would be frivolous. Chhim now moves in 

this court for the appointment of counsel and for leave to proceed IFP. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 18, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-20071 Document: 00512773836 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2014
No. 14-20071

By moving to proceed IFP, Chhim challenges the district court’s 

certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 

F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). An appeal is taken in good faith if it raises legal 

points that are arguable on the merits and thus nonfrivolous. Howard v. King, 

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

Because Chhim’s motion for reconsideration was filed more than 28 days 

after the entry of final judgment, it did not restart the time limit for filing a 

timely notice of appeal from the dismissal of his suit. See FED. R. APP.

P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). His notice of appeal was therefore timely only as to the denial 

of the motion for reconsideration, and his appeal from the denial of his motion 

for reconsideration does not bring up the underlying judgment for review. See 

Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763, 767 (5th Cir. 2010). Chhim, however, presents 

no argument that the district court erred in denying his motion for 

reconsideration. He has therefore abandoned any arguments regarding that 

ruling. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 

748 (5th Cir. 1987). Thus, Chhim has not established that he will raise a 

nonfrivolous appellate issue in connection with the denial of the motion. See 

Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, we deny his motion to proceed IFP on 

appeal and dismiss his appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Chhim’s motion for the appointment of counsel is likewise 

denied. See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Texas, 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th 

Cir. 1991).

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

2

 Case: 14-20071 Document: 00512773836 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2014
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEffects of wing modification on an aircraft's aerodynamic parameters as determined from flight dataA study of the effects of four wing-leading-edge modifications on a general aviation aircraft's stability and control parameters is presented. Flight data from the basic aircraft configuration and configurations with wing modifications are analyzed to determine each wing geometry's stability and control parameters. The parameter estimates and aerodynamic model forms are obtained using the stepwise regression and maximum likelihood techniques. The resulting parameter estimates and aerodynamic models are verified using vortex-lattice theory and by analysis of each model's ability to predict aircraft behavior. Comparisons of the stability and control derivative estimates from the basic wing and the four leading-edge modifications are accomplished so that the effects of each modification on aircraft stability and control derivatives can be determined.Document ID19860012079Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHess, R. A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1986Subject CategoryAircraft Stability And ControlReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-87591NAS 1.15:87591Accession Number86N21550Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-34-03-06Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860012079.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
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

Wniteb ~tate~ QCourt of ~peal~ 

for tbe jf eberal QCirmit 

AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES 

INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DELPHI CORPORATION, DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE 

SYSTEMS, LLC, DPH HOLDINGS CORPORATION, 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, 

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, LLC, GENERAL 

MOTORS LLC, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, VOLVO 

CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., 

AND HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, 

Defendants·Appellees, 

AND 

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND 

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND 

FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES USA, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee, 

AND 

MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY, 

Defendant. 
AUTOMOTIVE TECH v. DELPHI CORP 2 

2011-1292 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Michigan in consolidated case nos. 08-

CV-ll048 and 10-CV-10647, Judge Robert H. Cleland. 

ON MOTION 

Before RADER, Chief Judge, and GAJARSA and REYNA, 

Circuit Judges. 

REYNA, Circuit Judge. 

ORDER 

Automotive Technologies International, fnc. ("AT!"), 

moves without opposition to remand this appeal to the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Michigan, so that that court may consider an unopposed 

motion to vacate a portion of a summary judgment, due to 

settlement. 

Previously, this court dismissed this appeal because 

ATI failed to file its initial brief. Subsequently, we 

granted ATI's unopposed motion to reinstate the appeal 

so that ATI could file its motion to remand, on the condition that ATI filed a motion to remand. 

Accordingly, 

IT Is ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The mandate is recalled, the court's dismissal order is vacated, and the appeal is reinstated. 

(2) The motion to remand is granted. 
3 

MAR 08 2012 

Date 

AUTOMOTIVE TECH v. DELPHI CORP 

FOR THE COURT 

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

cc: Andrew J. Kochanowski, Esq. 

u.s. COURn'r.J>PEALS FOR 

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

s23 

John R. Hutchins, Esq. 

Paul Richard Steadman, Esq. 

David M. Schnorrenberg, Esq. 

Reginald J. Hill, Esq. MAR lJ 8 2012 

JAHIDIBAIY 

WIll
§ 703.109 Regulatory violation or unsafe and unsound condition. ( a ) Upon determination by the applicable Regional Director, and written notice by the same, a Federal credit union that no longer meets the requirements of this subpart; if applicable, fails to comply with its approved application; or is operating in an unsafe or unsound condition must immediately stop entering into any new Derivative transactions until the Federal credit union is notified by the applicable Regional Director in writing that it is permitted to resume engaging in Derivative transactions under this subpart.
( b ) If the applicable Regional Director determines a Federal credit union must take any action under paragraph (a) of this section, he or she will provide the Federal credit union with written notice including the reason(s) for such determination and the remedial actions that are required.
( c ) During this period, however, the Federal credit union may terminate existing Derivative transactions. A Regional Director may permit a Federal credit union to enter into offsetting transactions if he or she determines such transactions are part of a corrective action strategy; and
( d ) A Federal credit union that receives written notice under this section may appeal such determination in accordance with part 746 of the NCUA's regulations.
Environmental Court of Vermont State of Vermont

=================================================== ============================ E N T R Y R E G A R D I N G M O T I O N

=================================================== ============================

JLD Properties-Wal-Mart Stormwater Discharge Permit , Docket No. 129-5-06 Vtec Project: Wal-Mart St. Albans and 221-10-07 Vtec Applicant: JLD Properties (Appeal from ANR Storm Water Permit de termination)

Title: Motion to Dismiss R.L Vallee as an Intereste d Party, No. 4

Filed: October 16, 2008

Filed By: Stewart H. McConaughy, Attorney for Appel lee JLD Properties

Response: NONE

_X _ Granted ___ Denied ___ Other

Appellee-Applicant JLD Properties of St. Albans, LL C, has moved to dismiss R.L. Vallee, Inc., as an Interested Party i n Docket Numbers 129-5-06 Vtec (stormwater discharge permit appeal) and 221-1 0-07 Vtec (construction discharge permit appeal). No party has filed a res ponse opposing this motion.
In general, interested parties must enter an appear ance “within 20 days” of the last notice of appeal being served. V.R.E.C .P. 5(c). R.L. Valley’s October 6, 2008 Notice of Appearance missed this fi ling deadline by many months (or even years) for these docket numbers.
Even if we were to treat R.L. Valley’s Notice of Ap pearance as a motion to intervene, such motions must be “timely.” V.R.E .C.P. 5(c). We find that R.L. Vallee’s attempted late entrance into these do ckets, at a time when deadlines for pre-filed testimony were quickly appr oaching, was not timely. We also note that R.L. Vallee has chosen not to offer a substantive basis for its interested person status in these appeals, whether it be timely or not.
For these reasons, we GRANT JLD Properties’ motion to dismiss R.L. Vallee as an Interested Party.

___________________________________________ __ February 10, 2009

___ Thomas S. Durkin, Judge Date

=================================================== ============================ Date copies sent to: ____________ Cle rk's Initials _______ Copies sent to: Stewart H. McConaughy, Attorney for Appellee/Ap plicant JLD Properties, joined by Co-Counsel for Appellee, Robert F. O'Nei ll, Esq. Jon Groveman, Attorney for Appellant Vt. Natura l Resources Council Jon T. Anderson, Attorney for Interested Person R.L. Vallee, Inc. Judith L. Dillon, Attorney for Agency of Natura l Resources Mark L. Lucas, Attorney for NRB/Water Resources Panel David A. Barra, Attorney for Town of St. Albans Brian S. Dunkiel, Attorney for City of St. Alba ns (FYI purposes only) John H. Hasen, Attorney for NRB/Land Use Panel (FYI purposes only) John K. Dunleavy, Attorney for Vt. Agency of Tr ansportation (FYI only)