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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4743 

To amend the Act of August 10, 1956, to provide for the payment of 

pay and allowances for certain officers of the Army who are assigned 

to the Corps of Engineers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 

Mr. ROUNDS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Act of August 10, 1956, to provide for the 

payment of pay and allowances for certain officers of 

the Army who are assigned to the Corps of Engineers. 

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 ‘‘USACE Military Aug5 mentation Act of 2020’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4743 IS

1 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF CERTAIN 

2 OFFICERS FROM APPROPRIATION FOR IM3 PROVEMENTS. 

4 Section 36 of the Act of August 10, 1956 (70A Stat. 

5 634, chapter 1041), is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘Regular officers of the Corps 

7 of Engineers of the Army, and reserve officers of the 

8 Army who are assigned to the Corps of Engineers,’’ 

9 and inserting the following: 

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The personnel described in sub11 section (b)’’; and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(b) PERSONNEL DESCRIBED.—The personnel re14 ferred to in subsection (a) are the following: 

15 ‘‘(1) Regular officers of the Corps of Engineers 

16 of the Army. 

17 ‘‘(2) The following members of the Army who 

18 are assigned to the Corps of Engineers: 

19 ‘‘(A) Reserve component officers. 

20 ‘‘(B) Warrant officers (whether regular or 

21 reserve component). 

22 ‘‘(C) Enlisted members (whether regular or 

23 reserve component).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. FRANK BROWN, Appellant.

Springfield Court of Appeals,

June 3, 1912.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR: Bill of Exceptions: Failure tp Sign Bill of Exceptions. On an appeal in a criminal case it appeared that .the bill of exceptions was never signed by the judge of the court in which the case was tried and was wholly unauthenticated in this respect, and no substantial error appearing in the record proper the judgment was affirmed.

2. -: -: -. The statutes provide that a bill of exceptions shall be signed and in case of the judge’s refusal to sign the bill on the ground that it is untrue, he shall so certify thereon the cause for such refusal, and the statute provides how the bill may be signed by bystanders. A bill of exceptions not signed at all is a nullity.

Appeal from Christian Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *John T. Moore,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*J. S. McPherson*and *T. J. Delaney*for appellant.

*Fred W. Barrett*for respondent.

*727NIXON, P. J.

Defendant was tried and convicted in the circuit court of Christian county charged with having violated the Local Option Law alleged to he in force in said county and his punishment was assessed at a fine of four hundred dollars. Defendant has appealed. The ease was submitted to this court upon the record and what purports to be a bill of exceptions. The bill of exceptions was never signed by the judge of the court in which the case was tried and stands in this court wholly unauthenticated in this respect. Sections 2028 and 5245, Revised Statutes 1909, require that the bill of exceptions be signed, and section 2030, Revised Statutes 1909, provides that if the judge refuse to sign the bill on the ground that it is untrue, he shall certify thereon under his hand the cause for such refusal, and the succeeding section provides how the bill may be signed by bystanders. A bill of exceptions not signed at all is a nullity. [Smith v. Railway, 55 Mo. 601; Klotz v. Perteet, 101 Mo. 213, 13 S. W. 955; Garth v. Caldwell, 72 Mo. 622; Reno v. Fitz Jarrell, 163 Mo. 411, 63 S. W. 808; Roberts v. Jones, 148 Mo. 368, 49 S. W. 985.] There is nothing before us, therefore, except the record proper which we have carefully examined as we are required to do. [Sec. 5312, R. S. 1909; State v. Donohue, 139 Mo. App. 639, 124 S. W. 42; State v. Benton, 163 Mo. App. 39, 145 S. W. 833.] The information is in the approved form and sufficiently charges the offense of which the defendant was convicted. The record shows that the defendant was duly arraigned and entered his plea of not guilty. A trial was had by a jury regularly impaneled, and a verdict of guilty rendered, assessing the punishment as hereinbefore stated. Finding no substantial' error in the record before us, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Eljac Realty Corporation, Respondent, against William S. Miller et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants.

Argued April 19, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Oscar S. Cox*and *Murray Sendler*of counsel), for appellants.

*Elmer H. Settel, Henry Cohen*and *Patrick A. Bolger*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### § 1471.755 When will I know whether the suspension is continued or terminated?

The suspending official must make a written decision whether to continue, modify, or terminate your suspension within 45 days of closing the official record. The official record closes upon the suspending official's receipt of final submissions, information and findings of fact, if any. The suspending official may extend that period for good cause.
Exhibit 32.2

Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Gary D. Woerz, CFO of American
International Industries, Inc, a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following
certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with
respect to the following report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934: Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006.

The undersigned certifies that the above report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and information contained in the above report fairly presents, in all respects, the
financial condition of American International Industries, Inc. and results of its
operations.

Date: May 31, 2006
Gary D. Woerz
Chief Financial Officer/s/ Gary D. Woerz
#### § 1915.1018 Inorganic arsenic.

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1018 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1018).

[[61 FR 31431](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31431), June 20, 1996]
[No. 26917-1-II.

Division Two.

November 8, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Parentage of*Garrett Leroy Riley Carr. Brian L. Carr, *Appellant,*v. Charleen Chancellor, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 99-5-00087-2, Don L. McCulloch, J., entered December 14, 2000. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Morgan and Houghton, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50707 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE CARDONA-RAMIREZ, also known as Martin Lopez-Munoz Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-00046
Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The sole question raised in this appeal is whether Defendant-Appellant Jose Cardona-Ramirez’s illegal reentry sentence was improperly enhanced by eight levels on the ground that his prior California possession conviction amounted to an aggravated felony. According to the Bureau of Prisons website, Cardona-Ramirez is scheduled to complete his term of imprisonment April 14, 2008. Because his release is imminent, this Court cannot usefully grant the only relief to which Appellant would have been entitled: re-sentencing. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 21, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-50707

2 Because noeffectivejudicial remedy exists, we must DISMISS this appeal as MOOT.
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.84 Collections. ( a ) Whenever feasible, and except as otherwise provided by law, debts owed to the United States, together with interest, penalties, and administrative costs should be collected in full in one lump sum. This is true whether the debt is being collected by salary offset or by another method, including voluntary payment. However, if the debtor is financially unable to pay the indebtedness in one lump sum, or the amount of the debt exceeds 15 percent of disposable pay for an officially established pay interval, collection must be made in installments. Ordinarily, the size of installment deductions must bear a reasonable relationship to the size of the debt and the employee's ability to pay. However, the amount deducted for any period must not exceed 15 percent of the disposable pay from which the deduction is made, unless the employee has agreed in writing to the deduction of a greater amount. Installment deductions must be made over a period not greater than the anticipated period of active duty or employment, as the case may be except as provided in § 20.84 paragraphs (c) and (d). Where a DOL agency is the paying agency, salary offset will ordinarily begin with the salary payment made to the employee for the first full pay period following expiration of the 30 day notice period described in § 20.78(b), or if a hearing is pending under § 20.81, the first full pay period following the date of the administrative law judge's written decision.
( b ) If the debtor owes more than one debt and designates how a voluntary installment payment is to be applied as among those debts, that designation must be followed. If the debtor does not designate the application of the payment, agencies should apply payments to the various debts in accordance with the best interests of the United States, as determined by the facts and circumstances of the particular case, paying special attention to applicable statutes of limitations.
( c ) If the employee retires or resigns or if his or her employment or period of active duty ends before collection of the debt is completed, under 5 U.S.C. 5514, salary offset shall be from subsequent payments of any nature (e.g., final salary payment, lump-sum leave, etc.) due the employee from the paying agency as of the date of separation to the extent necessary to liquidate the debt.
( d ) If the debt cannot be liquidated by salary offset from any final payment due the former employee as of the date of separation, under 5 U.S.C. 5514, administrative offset shall be from later payments of any kind due the former employee from the United States.
#### § 1991.101 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Assistant Secretary* means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health or the person or persons to whom the Assistant Secretary delegates authority under CAARA.

*Antitrust laws* means section 1 or 3 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 or 3).

*Business days* means days other than Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

*CAARA* means the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act, Public Law 116-257, 134 Stat. 1147 (December 23, 2020) (codified at 15 U.S.C. 7a-3).

*Complainant* means the covered individual who filed a CAARA complaint or on whose behalf a complaint was filed.

*Covered individual* means an employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of an employer and includes an individual presently or formerly working for, an individual applying to work for, or an individual whose employment could be affected by, another person.

*DOJ* means the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice.

*Employer* means a person, or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such person.

*Federal Government* means a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency; or any Member of Congress or committee of Congress.

*OSHA* means the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States Department of Labor.

*Person* has the same meaning as in 15 U.S.C. 12(a) and includes individuals as well as corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country.

*Respondent* means the person named in the complaint who is alleged to have violated CAARA.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-24-004]

Take notice that on April 28, 2000, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, certain revised tariff sheets to comply with the Commission's Order issued on April 3, 2000 in Docket Nos. RP00-24-000, RP00-24-001, and RP00-24-002. The enclosed tariff sheets are proposed to be effective April 1, 2000.

Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to comply with the Commission's April 3 order in the referenced dockets to resume use of the cash out mechanism in effect on the Transco system prior to December 1, 1999.

Transco states that it is serving copies of the instant filing to its affected customers, State Commissions and other interested parties.

Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-11615 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 1640.7 Processing of charges of employment discrimination filed with the EEOC. ( a ) *EEOC determination of jurisdiction.* Upon receipt of a charge of employment discrimination, the EEOC shall: ( 1 ) Determine whether it has jurisdiction over the charge under title I of the ADA. If it has jurisdiction, except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the EEOC shall process the charge pursuant to title I procedures.
( 2 ) If the EEOC determines that it does not have jurisdiction under title I, the EEOC shall promptly refer the charge to the Civil Rights Division. The Civil Rights Division shall determine if a Federal agency may have jurisdiction over the charge under section 504 or title II, and, if so, shall refer the charge to a section 504 agency or to a designated agency with jurisdiction over the complaint.
( b ) *Retention by the EEOC for investigation.* ( 1 ) The EEOC shall retain a charge for investigation when it determines that it has jurisdiction over the charge under title I.
( 2 ) *Referral to an agency.* Any charge retained by the EEOC for investigation and processing will be investigated and processed under title I only, and will not be deemed dual filed under section 504, except that ADA cause charges (as defined in 29 CFR 1601.21) that also fall within the jurisdiction of a section 504 agency and that the EEOC (or the Civil Rights Division, if such a charge is against a government, governmental agency, or political subdivision) has declined to litigate shall be referred to the appropriate section 504 agency for review of the file and any administrative or other action deemed appropriate under section 504. Such charges shall be deemed complaints, dual filed under section 504, solely for the purposes of the agency review and action described in this paragraph. The date of such dual filing shall be deemed to be the date the complaint was received by the EEOC.
#### § 18.402 Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible.

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, pursuant to executive order, by these rules, or by other rules or regulations prescribed by the administrative agency pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

. SE 04 331A021
#### Commonwealth v. Showers

*Edward, J. Blatt,*for Commonwealth.

*Alvin B. Coppolo,*for defendant.

September 4, 1958.

Trambley, P. J.,

— This case is before the court on a writ of certiorari from the decision of William J. Bebble, Justice of the Peace, St. Marys. As a result of a search warrant, issued to a member of the game commission, parts of a deer, which are not described, were found in the possession of William E. Showers subsequent to July 1, after the closed season on deer.

While we find several matters which are questionable in the record of the justice of the peace, we are not in accord with defendant in his contention that there is no penalty provided in that portion of section 4 of the Act of May 24, 1956, P. L. (1955) 1736, 34 PS §1311.731, except for any violation relating to the buying or selling or bartering of the whole or any substantial part or parts of a game animal, in this *424case a deer. However, we are in accord with the contention of defendant that the part of said act which amends The Game Law of June 3, 1937, P. L. 1225, art. VII, sec. 731, as amended, June 24,1939, P. L. 810, sec. 1, and May 15, 1945, P. L. 517, sec. 2, which reads as follows: “. . . of the whole or any substantial part or parts of,” naming the various game animals, is unconstitutional in that it is too vague and does not define what is meant by the word “substantial”, especially in this case as no description of the parts is given and the court has no evidence which would enable it to determine whether the parts were substantial or not.

The act being penal it must be strictly construed and it does not appear anywhere in the record what part or parts of the deer were found in the possession of defendant nor did defendant plead guilty to anything but possession of *parts*of wild deer. Neither does the information set forth that defendant is charged with the possession of “substantial” parts of deer after July 1, following the close of the season, as required by the statute. In fact it states that defendant was in possession of deer after July 1, following the closed season, which is not in accordance with the record of the justice of the peace as the record only indicates, and defendant only pleaded guilty, to possession of parts of wild deer, not substantial parts.

*Order*

Now, September 4, 1958, in view of the fact that the record does not charge any crime to which defendant pleaded guilty and that the word “substantial”, without defining it, is so vague that it is impossible for the court to decide what is substantial and what is not substantial, especially in a case such as this where the parts of the wild deer found are not identified or described by the witnesses, this court holds that the judgment of the justice of the peace must be reversed *425and that judgment must be rendered in favor of William E. Showers, defendant, costs to be paid by the Pennsylvania Game Commission.
#### STATE ex Hollo v INDUST COMM.

Ohio Supreme Court

No. 21903.

Decided Oct. 23, 1929

Syllabus by

DAY, J.

EMPLOYER & EMPLOYE

(250 lb) While an award made under the Industrial Commission Act for an injury . to an employe and an additional award made for violation of a specific requirement causing such injury, are separate and distinct awards, yet, growing out of the same probative facts and affecting the same parties, they are to be regarded *640as so interdependent that the Commission, under the discretion given it by 1465-86 GC, may make ■ such modifications or changes with reference to either of said awards as in its opinion are justified.

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade and Matthias, JJ., concur. Robinson and Jones, JJ., not participating.
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 Defense

###### Defense Partnership Council Meeting; Cancellation

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

On May 5, 2000 (65 FR 26190), the Department of Defense published a notice to announce a meeting of the Defense Partnership Council meeting to be held on May 23, 2000. This notice is to announce the cancellation of the meeting due to conflicts in members' schedules.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Ben James, Chief, Labor Relations Branch, Field Advisory Services Division, Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service, 1400 Key Boulevard, Suite B-200, Arlington, VA 22209-5144, telephone 703-696-1450.

Dated: May 10, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-12189 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M