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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3536 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 558
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3536

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 2004

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

                              June 7, 2004

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 210 Main Street in Malden, Illinois, as the ``Army Staff Sgt. 
                Lincoln Hollinsaid Malden Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 210 
Main Street in Malden, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 
``Army Staff Sgt. Lincoln Hollinsaid Malden Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Army Staff Sgt. Lincoln 
Hollinsaid Malden Post Office''.

                                                       Calendar No. 558

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3536

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 210 Main Street in Malden, Illinois, as the ``Army Staff Sgt. 
                Lincoln Hollinsaid Malden Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 7, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3817 

To observe the lives lost in the United States due to the COVID–19 pandemic. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2020 

Mr. SCHATZ (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. COONS, Ms. MURKOWSKI, 

Mr. DURBIN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. BENNET, Ms. SMITH, Ms. 

DUCKWORTH, Mr. KAINE, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mrs. 

MURRAY, Ms. WARREN, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, 

Mr. BOOKER, and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To observe the lives lost in the United States due to the 

COVID–19 pandemic. 

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 ‘‘COVID–19 Pandemic 

5 Moment of Silence Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR THE VICTIMS OF THE 

7 COVID–19 PANDEMIC. 

8 The President shall issue a proclamation calling on 

9 the people of the United States to observe a moment of 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3817 IS

1 silence at 12:00 p.m. (local time) on Monday, June 1, 

2 2020, as a mark of respect to the memory of the more 

3 than 100,000 lives lost in the United States due to the 

4 COVID–19 pandemic, as well as their families. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2021343EN.01002301.xml

| 26.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/23

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2021/C 343/04)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 12 May 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 86817 |
| Decision No | 041/21/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | COVID-19 Prolongation and amendments to the compensation scheme for large public events |
| Legal basis | Parliamentary decision authorising the scheme and setting out its main conditions and a letter of assignment from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries to Innovation Norway |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Compensation of damage caused by exceptional occurrence |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | NOK 260 million |
| Intensity | 60 % |
| Duration | Until 31 December 2021 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Innovation Norway |
| Pb. 448 Sentrum |
| Akersgata 13 |
| N-0104 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

12 May 2020

Case No

86817

Decision No

041/21/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

COVID-19 Prolongation and amendments to the compensation scheme for large public events

Legal basis

Parliamentary decision authorising the scheme and setting out its main conditions and a letter of assignment from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries to Innovation Norway

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Compensation of damage caused by exceptional occurrence

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

NOK 260 million

Intensity

60 %

Duration

Until 31 December 2021

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Innovation Norway

Pb. 448 Sentrum

Akersgata 13

N-0104 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
§ 13.71 Applicability. ( a ) An order of compliance may be issued after notice and an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with §§ 13.73 through 13.77 whenever the Chief Counsel, a Deputy Chief Counsel, or the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement has reason to believe that a person is engaging in the transportation or shipment by air of hazardous materials in violation of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended and codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 51, or any rule, regulation, or order issued under 49 U.S.C. chapter 51, for which the FAA exercises enforcement responsibility, and the circumstances do not require the issuance of an emergency order under 49 U.S.C. 5121(d).
( b ) If circumstances require the issuance of an emergency order under 49 U.S.C. 5121(d), the Chief Counsel, a Deputy Chief Counsel, or the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement will issue an emergency order of compliance as described in § 13.81.
#### Sanders *et al. v.*McDowell, Administratrix.

A writ of error will not lie to reverse a judgment, after a forth-coming bond has been taken and forfeited.

Where a judgment by default was rendered against three defendants, and only two of them were served with process, and a forth-coming bond was given by the two upon whom the writ was served; but subsequently to the forfeiture of the bond, a writ o error was prosecuted in the name of all the defendants, it was determined, that the defendants, who had given the forth-coming bond, were, by the statute, estopped from bringing their writ of error, and the cause dismissed as to them; and that, the other defendant was not bound by the judgment.

ERROR from the circuit court of the county of Madison.

At the April term of said court, 1839, Rebecca McDowell, as Administratrix, &c., brought an action of *assumpsit*on a promissory note for one thousand three hundred and forty-five dollars, against Benjamin Tarver, Sion Sanders and Peter Ragsdale. The writ was returned executed on Sanders and Ragsdale, but there was no return as to Tarver.

On the 25th day of April, judgment was rendered by default against all the defendants. Execution was issued against Sanders and Ragsdale only, and a forth-coming bond given by them and forfeited.

The cause was subsequently brought to this court, by writ of error, in the name of all the defendants below.

N. Calhoun, for plaintiffs in error.

C. C. Shackelford, for defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The action was instituted against the plaintiffs in error on a promissory note. Two of them were served with process, but the other was not. The judgment was by default against the defendants generally. Execution issued against the two who were served with process, and they gave a forth-coming bond which was forfeited, before the writ of error sued out. The *10question is whether the judgment is erroneous, and if so, can it be reached after the forfeiture of the bond.

We should have no hesitation in pronouncing the judgment erroneous, if a forth-coming bond had not been given. The bond however, precludes the parties who gave it, and as the party who was not served with process did not join in the bond, there being no execution against him, we must regard him as free from the operation of the judgment, and the case must be dismissed as to the others.
§ 136.9 Life preservers for operations over water. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, the operator and pilot in command of commercial air tours over water beyond the shoreline must ensure that each occupant is wearing a life preserver from before takeoff until flight is no longer over water.
( b ) The operator and pilot in command of a commercial air tour over water beyond the shoreline must ensure that a life preserver is readily available for its intended use and easily accessible to each occupant if: ( 1 ) The aircraft is equipped with floats;
( 2 ) The airplane is within power-off gliding distance to the shoreline for the duration of the time that the flight is over water; or
( 3 ) The aircraft is a multiengine that can be operated with the critical engine inoperative at a weight that will allow it to climb, at least 50 feet a minute, at an altitude of 1,000 feet above the surface, as provided in the approved aircraft flight manual for that aircraft.
( c ) No life preserver is required if the overwater operation is necessary only for takeoff or landing.
[Docket No. FAA-1998-4521, 72 FR 6912, Feb. 13, 2007, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2022-1563; Amdt. No. 136-2, 88 FR 48091, July 26, 2023]
CAUSE NO. CC-15-02674-B WELLS FARGO BANK NA, IN THE COUNTY COURT Plaintiff
v AT LAW NO. 2 ROWENA REYES AND ALL OCCUPANTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY,TEXAS DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED 7/171201511 : 25:2 1 AM JOHN F
. WARREN

COUN TY CLERK DALLAS COUNTY

COMES NOW ROWENA REYES Defendant herein, and files this Notice of Appeal, respectfully showing unto the Court as follows: On June 18 , 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's request for relief , granting unto it the immediate right to possession of the property at issue in this case . Defendant does and hereby appeals the Court's ruling and order signed on June 18 , 2015. Respectfully submitted, 

### lsi Wade Kricken Wade Kricken State Bar No. 24034527 P. O. Box 3208 McKinney, Texas 214.256
.9288

- office 214
.593.3108

- facsimile wade@ krickcnlawfirm.com ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT ROWENA REYES
§ 135.301 Crewmember: Tests and checks, grace provisions, training to accepted standards. ( a ) If a crewmember who is required to take a test or a flight check under this part, completes the test or flight check in the calendar month before or after the calendar month in which it is required, that crewmember is considered to have completed the test or check in the calendar month in which it is required.
( b ) If a pilot being checked under this subpart fails any of the required maneuvers, the person giving the check may give additional training to the pilot during the course of the check. In addition to repeating the maneuvers failed, the person giving the check may require the pilot being checked to repeat any other maneuvers that are necessary to determine the pilot's proficiency. If the pilot being checked is unable to demonstrate satisfactory performance to the person conducting the check, the certificate holder may not use the pilot, nor may the pilot serve, as a flight crewmember in operations under this part until the pilot has satisfactorily completed the check.
§ 13.33 Parties, representatives, and notice of appearance. ( a ) *Parties.* Parties to proceedings under this subpart include the following: Complainant, respondent, and where applicable, intervenor. ( 1 ) Complainant is the FAA Office that issued the notice of proposed action under the authorities listed in § 13.31.
( 2 ) Respondent is the party filing a request for hearing.
( 3 ) Intervenor is a person permitted to participate as a party under § 13.51.
( b ) *Representatives.* Any party to a proceeding under this subpart may appear and be heard in person or by a representative. A representative is an attorney, or another representative designated by the party.
( c ) *Notice of appearance* — ( 1 ) *Content.* The representative of a party must file a notice of appearance that includes the representative's name, address, telephone number, and, if available, fax number, and email address.
( 2 ) *Filing.* A notice of appearance may be incorporated into an initial filing in a proceeding. A notice of appearance by additional representatives or substitutes after an initial filing in a proceeding must be filed independently.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10642]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Denial of Permit for Marine Mammals

    On December 17, 1999, a notice was published in the Federal 
Register, Vol. 64, No. 242, Page 70723, that an application had been 
filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by Leviathan Legacy, Inc., for 
a permit (PRT-020346) for a permit to conduct scientific research with 
West Indian Manatees (Trichechus manatus).
    Notice is hereby given that on April 18, 2000, as authorized by the 
provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) the Fish and Wildlife Service denied the requested 
permit.
    Documents and other information submitted for these applications 
are available for review by any party who submits a written request to 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Management Authority, 
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Rm 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203, phone 
(703) 358-2104 or Fax (703) 358-2281.

    Dated: April 25, 2000.
Kristen Nelson,
Chief, Branch of Permits, Office of Management Authority.
[FR Doc. 00-10642 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
§ 1259.203 Limitations. The Act at Public Law 100-147, Section 206(d)(2) and (3), states that: ( a ) Funds for awards made under this section may not be used to: ( 1 ) Purchase land;
( 2 ) Purchase, construct, preserve or repair any building; or
( 3 ) Purchase or construct any launch facility or launch vehicle.
( b ) However, funds may be used to lease any of the items listed in paragraph (a) of this section provided prior written approval is obtained from the Administrator or designee.
[54 FR 19880, May 9, 1989, as amended at 82 FR 35441, July 31, 2017]
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Arrow Resources Development, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended on March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Frugone, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Peter FrugonePeter Frugone





Date: May 23, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3810 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3810

 To provide that any termination of a director of a national research 
institute or national center of the National Institutes of Health be on 
    the basis of malfeasance, neglect of office, or incapacity only.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2020

   Mrs. Feinstein (for Mr. Markey (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein)) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that any termination of a director of a national research 
institute or national center of the National Institutes of Health be on 
    the basis of malfeasance, neglect of office, or incapacity only.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Institutes of Health 
Director Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OR 
              NATIONAL CENTER OF THE NIH.

    Section 405(a)(2)(E) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
284(a)(2)(E)) is amended--
            (1) in the heading of subparagraph (E), by striking ``Rule 
        of construction'' and inserting ``Termination for cause''; and
            (2) by inserting ``, except that any such termination may 
        be made only on the basis of malfeasance by, neglect of office 
        by, or incapacity of the director'' before the period.
                                 <all>
```
## NUMBER 13
- 2 1
- 00 048
- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

AARON MALONE, TDCJ NO. 1697643 , A ppellant ,

v.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ET AL. , A ppellee s
.

On a ppeal from 36th District Court of Bee County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina Order Per Curiam
Before the court are appellant’s amended motions to waive the cost of the clerk’s
and reporter ’ s record
, to charge cost to inmate trust account , and for an extension of time to file the appellate record. The appellate record is now past due and
, o n April 6, 2021,2 the clerk of the court received notice from the district clerk’s office that appellant has not
arranged to pay for the clerk’s record

. Accordingly, we now ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial

court for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall immed iately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:

1. Whether appellant is indigent;

2. Whether appellant is entitled to a free appellate record due to indigency; and

3. Whether appellant has been provided a complete copy of the appellate record. If the trial court determines that appellant is indigent and entitled to a free appellate
record, the trial court shall make any orders necessary to ensure appellant has the opportunity to fully examine the appellate record. Additionally, appellant’s motions to

waive the costs and motion to extend time to file clerk’s and reporter’s record are
CARRIED with the case. The trial court shall cause its finding s and recommendations, together with any orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental

clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record of
proceedings to be prepared. Th e supplemental clerk's record and supplemental reporter' s record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.

PER C URIAM

Delivered and filed the 25th day of May, 2021.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(b)

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in this Pre-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement on Form N-4 (Registration Nos. 333-103098 and 811-4865)
of our report dated February 13, 2003 relating to the financial statements of
American International Life Assurance Company of New York and our report dated
April 8, 2003 relating to the financial statements of American International
Life Assurance Company of New York Variable Account A, which appear in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the references to us under the
headings "Independent Accountants" in such Registration Statement.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
April 25, 2003
§ 16.209 Extension of time. ( a ) *Extension by oral agreement.* The parties may agree to extend for a reasonable period of time for filing a document under this part. If the parties agree, the hearing officer shall grant one extension of time to each party. The party seeking the extension of time shall submit a draft order to the hearing officer to be signed by the hearing officer and filed with the hearing docket. The hearing officer may grant additional oral requests for an extension of time where the parties agree to the extension.
( b ) *Extension by motion.* A party shall file a written motion for an extension of time with the hearing officer not later than 7 days before the document is due unless good cause for the late filing is shown. A party filing a written motion for an extension of time shall serve a copy of the motion on each party.
( c ) *Failure to rule.* If the hearing officer fails to rule on a written motion for an extension of time by the date the document was due, the motion for an extension of time is deemed denied.
( d ) *Effect on time limits.* In a hearing required by section 519(b) of the Airport and Airways Improvement Act, as amended in 1987, 49 U.S.C. 47106(e) and 47111(d), the due date for the hearing officer's initial decision and for the final agency decision are extended by the length of the extension granted by the hearing officer only if the hearing officer grants an extension of time as a result of an agreement by the parties as specified in paragraph (a) of this section or, if the hearing officer grants an extension of time as a result of the sponsor's failure to adhere to the hearing schedule. In any other hearing, an extension of time granted by the hearing officer for any reason extends the due date for the hearing officer's initial decision and for the final agency decision by the length of time of the hearing officer's decision.