alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1611.7 Request for correction or amendment to record. ( a ) Any person who wishes to request correction or amendment of any record pertaining to him or her which is contained in a system of records maintained by the Commission, shall submit that request in writing in accordance with the instructions set forth in the system notice for that system of records. If the request is submitted by mail, the envelope should be clearly labeled “Personal Information Amendment.” The request shall include: ( 1 ) The name of the individual making the request;
( 2 ) The name of the system of records as set forth in the system notice to which the request relates;
( 3 ) A description of the nature (e.g., modification, addition or deletion) and substance of the correction or amendment requested; and
( 4 ) Any other information specified in the system notice.
( b ) Any person submitting a request pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall include sufficient information in support of that request to allow the Commission to apply the standards set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a (e).
( c ) All requests to amend pertaining to personnel records described in § 1611.3(b) shall conform to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and may be directed to the appropriate officials as indicated in § 1611.3(b). Such requests may also be directed to the system manager specified in the OPM's systems notices.
( d ) Any person whose request under paragraph (a) of this section is denied may appeal that denial in accordance with § 1611.9(a).
[42 FR 7949, Feb. 8, 1977, as amended at 56 FR 29581, June 28, 1991]
§ 1470.11 State plans. ( a ) *Scope.* The statutes for some programs require States to submit plans before receiving grants. Under regulations implementing Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” States are allowed to simplify, consolidate and substitute plans. This section contains additional provisions for plans that are subject to regulations implementing the Executive order.
( b ) *Requirements.* A State need meet only Federal administrative or programmatic requirements for a plan that are in statutes or codified regulations.
( c ) *Assurances.* In each plan the State will include an assurance that the State shall comply with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding. For this assurance and other assurances required in the plan, the State may: ( 1 ) Cite by number the statutory or regulatory provisions requiring the assurances and affirm that it gives the assurances required by those provisions,
( 2 ) Repeat the assurance language in the statutes or regulations, or
( 3 ) Develop its own language to the extent permitted by law.
( d ) *Amendments.* A State will amend a plan whenever necessary to reflect: ( 1 ) New or revised Federal statutes or regulations or
( 2 ) a material change in any State law, organization, policy, or State agency operation. The State will obtain approval for the amendment and its effective date but need submit for approval only the amended portions of the plan.
#### Samuel Stone *versus*Calvin Hubbard.

tVTerc the geneva! issue is pleaded in an action of trespass *quare clausum*brought before a justice of the peace, the plaintiff is not obliged to prove that he was in thtt exclusive possession of the close.

Trespass *quare clausum,*originally brought before a jus tice of the peace. Plea, the general issue.- In the Court of *218Common Pleas, the plaintiff proved that lie planted and cultivated corn on the close, but did not prove any other title. The defendant contended, that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that he was in the exclusive possession at the time of the alleged trespass ; but *Cummins*J. titled that such evidence was unnecessary, and that inasmuch an the defendant had pleaded the general issue, he was not at. liberty to controvert the plaintiff’s title or possession. To this decision the defendant excepted."

*T. Fuller*and *B. Russell,*for the defendant,

cited St. 1783, c. 42, § 2, 6, 7. [Revised Stat. c. 85, § 1, 3, 6, 11.]

*Farley,*for the plaintiff,

cited *Lynch v. Rosseter,*6 Pick. 419.

*Per Curiam.*

The objection made by the defendant was rightly disallowed. If he meant to controvert the title of the plaintiff, he "should have put it in issue *in limine,*by pleading it.

*Exceptions overruled*
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Final environmental impactstatement, Cameron Liquefaction Project.**
 
SuDoc Number:E 2.11:248 F
Item Number:0492-V-17 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000927117
 
 
Cover  Letter
Table  of Contents
Executive  Summary
Section  1
Section  2
Section  3
Section  4
Section  5
 
Appendix  A
Appendix  B
Appendix  C
Appendix  D
Appendix  E
Appendix  F
Appendix  G
Appendix  H
Appendix  I
Appendix  J
Appendix  K
Appendix  L
Appendix  M
 
 
January 17, 2018
§ 101.12 Board decision and order. ( a ) If any party files exceptions to the administrative law judge's decision, the Board, with the assistance of the staff counsel to each Board Member who function in much the same manner as law clerks do for judges, reviews the entire record, including the administrative law judge's decision and recommendations, the exceptions thereto, the complete transcript of evidence, and the exhibits, briefs, and arguments. The Board does not consult with members of the administrative law judge's staff of the division of judges or with any agent of the General Counsel in its deliberations. It then issues its decision and order in which it may adopt, modify, or reject the findings and recommendations of the administrative law judge. The decision and order contains detailed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and basic reasons for decision on all material issues raised, and an order either dismissing the complaint in whole or in part or requiring the respondent to cease and desist from its unlawful practices and to take appropriate affirmative action.
( b ) If no exceptions are filed, the administrative law judge's decision and recommended order automatically become the decision and order of the Board pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act. All objections and exceptions, whether or not previously made during or after the hearing, are deemed waived for all purposes.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,768,389
<SECURITIES>                                89,321,922
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,975,201
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (117,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            96,442,835
<PP&E>                                     100,614,294
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,689,451)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             280,633,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,514,702
<BONDS>                                    180,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       163,935
<OTHER-SE>                                  67,302,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               280,633,376
<SALES>                                      5,665,276
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,665,276
<CGS>                                        6,365,758
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,365,758
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,530,071
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          21,011,474
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (27,529,768)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (27,529,768)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (27,529,768)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.70)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4911 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4911

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the exclusion for 
compensation for injuries or sickness to encompass posttraumatic stress 
                   disorder, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2020

  Mr. Merkley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the exclusion for 
compensation for injuries or sickness to encompass posttraumatic stress 
                   disorder, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FOR COMPENSATION FOR POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS 
              DISORDER.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 104(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``sickness'' and inserting 
``sickness or posttraumatic stress disorder''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The last sentence of section 104(a) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``shall not 
apply'' and inserting ``shall not apply to posttraumatic stress 
disorder or''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to compensation received after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 472 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure that revenues collected 

from passengers as aviation security fees are used to help finance the 

costs of aviation security screening by repealing a requirement that 

a portion of such fees be credited as offsetting receipts and deposited 

in the general fund of the Treasury. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure that revenues collected from passengers as aviation security fees 

are used to help finance the costs of aviation security 

screening by repealing a requirement that a portion of 

such fees be credited as offsetting receipts and deposited 

in the general fund of the Treasury. 

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


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 472 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Funding for Aviation 

3 Screeners and Threat Elimination Restoration Act’’ or the 

4 ‘‘FASTER Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT REGARDING CREDITING 

6 AND DEPOSIT OF A PORTION OF AVIATION 

7 SECURITY FEES. 

8 (a) REPEAL.—Section 44940 of title 49, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 

10 (1) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3); 

11 (2) in subsection (f)— 

12 (A) by striking the heading and inserting 

13 ‘‘DEPOSIT AND AVAILABILITY OF FEE.—’’; 

14 (B) by striking paragraph (1); 

15 (C) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and 

16 (3) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and 

17 (D) by amending paragraph (1), as so re18 designated, to read as follows: 

19 ‘‘(1) shall be deposited into a separate account 

20 in the Treasury, which shall be available to the Ad21 ministrator for expenditure only to pay the costs of 

22 activities and services for which the fee is imposed; 

23 and’’; and 

24 (3) by striking subsection (i). 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 472 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (d)(4) 

2 of such section is amended by striking ‘‘, other than sub3 section (i),’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
#### § 1601.22 Confidentiality.

Neither a charge, nor information obtained during the investigation of a charge of employment discrimination under title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA, nor information obtained from records required to be kept or reports required to be filed pursuant to title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA, shall be made matters of public information by the Commission prior to the institution of any proceeding under title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA involving such charge or information. This provision does not apply to such earlier disclosures to charging parties, or their attorneys, respondents or their attorneys, or witnesses where disclosure is deemed necessary for securing appropriate relief. This provision also does not apply to such earlier disclosures to representatives of interested Federal, State, and local authorities as may be appropriate or necessary to the carrying out of the Commission's function under title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA, nor to the publication of data derived from such information in a form which does not reveal the identity of charging parties, respondents, or persons supplying the information.

[42 FR 55388, Oct. 14, 1977, as amended at 56 FR 9624, 9625, Mar. 7, 1991; 74 FR 63982, 63983, Dec. 7, 2009; 89 FR 11169, Feb. 14, 2024]
#### §§ 61.118-61.120 [Reserved]
#### MACKENZIE et v STUBER et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21183.

Decided Feb 6, 1929

Syllabus by

MARSHALL, CJ.

REAL ESTATE

(510 L2) (510 F3) Where a plaintiff prays a personal judgment and foreclosure of a conditional land contract, the defendant is entitled to have the issue of personal judgment, if such issue is joined, submitted to the determination of a jury, and a denial of that right by the trial court is error.

CONTRACTS

(150 Da) Where liquidated damages are provided for in a contract as compensation for a breach upon the part of one party to the contract, such contract provides the measure of damages and no further recovery may be had by the complaining party.

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001063018
<NAME>                        ISG Resources, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  21,496,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                   329,000
<INVENTORY>                                    4,055,425
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               27,046,921
<PP&E>                                         41,477,562
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,893,374
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,462,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          18,075,120
<BONDS>                                        133,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     27,161,804
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,462,511
<SALES>                                        120,319,575
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               156,205,272
<CGS>                                          83,442,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  142,883,926
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             13,391,944
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                285,177
<INCOME-TAX>                                   647,589
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (362,412)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (362,412)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
[No. 28141-4-II.

Division Two.

December 6, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ryan Lee Unsell, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 01-1-04959-5, Frank Cuthbertson, J., entered November 30, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Hunt, C.J., and Bridgewater, J.
§ 1630.10 Qualification standards, tests, and other selection criteria. ( a ) *In general.* It is unlawful for a covered entity to use qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities, on the basis of disability, unless the standard, test, or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity.
( b ) *Qualification standards and tests related to uncorrected vision.* Notwithstanding § 1630.2(j)(1)(vi) of this part, a covered entity shall not use qualification standards, employment tests, or other selection criteria based on an individual's uncorrected vision unless the standard, test, or other selection criterion, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity. An individual challenging a covered entity's application of a qualification standard, test, or other criterion based on uncorrected vision need not be a person with a disability, but must be adversely affected by the application of the standard, test, or other criterion.
[76 FR 17002, Mar. 25, 2011]
1The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1161

___________

Ellery Cole, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Winebrenner, COII; Sandra Jimmerson, *

Acting FUM; Mike Tagger, AHO; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Vaughn, COII, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: July 26, 2001

 Filed: August 2, 2001

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri prisoner Ellery Cole appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging that defendants failed to
protect him from inmate attacks, and that the discipline they imposed for his possession

of a weapon in self-defense violated his right to procedural due process. After careful

de novo review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in rejecting

either claim.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 91.143 Flight limitation in the proximity of space flight operations.

When a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) is issued in accordance with this section, no person may operate any aircraft of U.S. registry, or pilot any aircraft under the authority of an airman certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, within areas designated in a NOTAM for space flight operation except when authorized by ATC.

[Doc. No. FAA-2004-19246, 69 FR 59753, Oct. 5, 2004]
#### LIMA USED CAR EXCHANGE CO v HEMPERLY

Ohio Supreme Court

No 11477.

Decided Apr 24, 1929

Syllabus by

DAY, J.

TRIAL

(590 Cg2) Section 11477, paragraph 5, General Code’ providing that in civil actions “when after the evidence is concluded either party may present written instructions to the court on matters of law and request them to be given to the jury, which instructions, shall be given or refused, by the court before the argument to the jury is commenced.” is mandatory, and a refusal to give a requested instruction, if it is in writing and contains a correct proposition of law applicable to the issues in the case, is erroneous even though the court ■in its general charge may give it or the substance thereof, in its own language.

AUTOMOBILES

(50 Eb) A violation of either Section 6310-1 or Section 12614-3, General Code, which provides for the display of lights upon the front and rear of motor vehicles operated upon the highway, at night, is negligence per se, warranting a recovery by the one damaged as a direct and proximate cause of such negligence, provided such person is in the exercise of due care for his own safety at the time and place in question. (Schell v DuBois, Admr., 94 Ohio St., 93, and Chesrown v. Bevier, 101 Ohio St., 282, approved and followed.

(50 Rh) A motor vehicle allowed to stand at night, in whole or in part, upon the public highway, without displaying such lights in the manner and during the time as provided in Sections 6310-1 and 12614-3, General Code, is within the inhibition of such sections, even though such motor vehicle is at such time not actually in motion.

Marshall, CJ, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ, concur.