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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 847 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 847

    To extend the period of time during which a veteran's multiple 
 sclerosis is to be considered to have been incurred in, or aggravated 
              by, military service during a period of war.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 2007

  Mrs. Murray introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the period of time during which a veteran's multiple 
 sclerosis is to be considered to have been incurred in, or aggravated 
              by, military service during a period of war.

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

SECTION 1. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTED ILLNESS.

    Section 1112(a)(4) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``within seven years from'' and inserting ``after''.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 4, 2012

t0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

145312

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145312

COA: 302856

Muskegon CC: 10

- 059344

- FC

JUAN LUIS REYNA,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 25.8 Construction of rules.

The rules shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes and provisions of the order.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12362]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, June 30, 2000.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-12362 Filed 5-12-00; 11:31 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
§ 2570.63 Parties, how designated. For 502(c)(2) civil penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of § 18.10 of this title. ( a ) The term “party” wherever used in these rules shall include any natural person, corporation, employee benefit plan, association, firm, partnership, trustee, receiver, agency, public or private organization, or government agency. A party against whom a civil penalty is sought shall be designated as “respondent.” The Department shall be designated as the “complainant.”
( b ) Other persons or organizations shall be permitted to participate as parties only if the administrative law judge finds that the final decision could directly and adversely affect them or the class they represent, that they may contribute materially to the disposition of the proceedings and their interest is not adequately represented by existing parties, and that in the discretion of the administrative law judge the participation of such persons or organizations would be appropriate.
( c ) A person or organization not named as a respondent wishing to participate as a party under this section shall submit a petition to the administrative law judge within fifteen (15) days after the person or organization has knowledge of or should have known about the proceeding. The petition shall be filed with the administrative law judge and served on each person or organization who has been made a party at the time of filing. Such petition shall concisely state: ( 1 ) Petitioner's interest in the proceeding;
( 2 ) How his or her participation as a party will contribute materially to the disposition of the proceeding;
( 3 ) Who will appear for petitioner;
( 4 ) The issues on which petitioner wishes to participate; and
( 5 ) Whether petitioner intends to present witnesses.
( d ) Objections to the petition may be filed by a party within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the petition. If objections to the petition are filed, the administrative law judge shall then determine whether petitioners have the requisite interest to be a party in the proceedings, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, and shall permit or deny participation accordingly. Where petitions to participate as parties are made by individuals or groups with common interests, the administrative law judge may request all such petitioners to designate a single representative, or he or she may recognize one or more of such petitioners. The administrative law judge shall give each such petitioner as well as the parties, written notice of the decision on his or her petition. For each petition granted, the administrative law judge shall provide a brief statement of the basis of the decision. If the petition is denied, he or she shall briefly state the grounds for denial and shall then treat the petition as a request for participation as amicus curiae.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1621

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Quentin Jetton

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City

____________

 Submitted: December 5, 2012

Filed: December 6, 2012

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Quentin Jetton appeals the sentence that the district court1

 imposed upon

revoking his supervised release. His counsel has filed a brief challenging the

reasonableness of Jetton’s revocation sentence and requesting permission to withdraw.

This court concludes that the district court committed no abuse of discretion,

and that Jetton’s revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v.

Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (appellate court reviews revocation

sentence for abuse of discretion; district court abuses discretion if sentence imposed

is unreasonable); see also United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir.

2009) (court reviews revocation sentencing decisions using same standards as applied

to initial sentencing decisions; first ensuring that district court committed no

significant procedural error such as failing to consider relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors, and then considering substantive reasonableness of sentence). The district

court sentenced Jetton to a prison term below the statutory maximum, and gave sound

reasons for its sentencing decision. Cf. United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 924

(8th Cir. 2006) (although defendant received maximum sentence available under

statute, district court justified its decision by giving excellent supporting reasons,

including its grave concern over defendant’s numerous and repeated

supervised-release violations).

This court grants counsel permission to withdraw, and affirms.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

-2-
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 10, 2018

No. 04-18-00423-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.T.H., A CHILD,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-01435

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. Appellant’s courtappointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. We have 

held that in parental-termination appeals, a procedure akin to Anders is necessary to best protect 

the statutory right to counsel on appeal, to provide a procedural mechanism for counsel to fulfill 

his ethical obligations, to assist the court in deciding appeals, and to provide consistent 

procedures for all indigent litigants. See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at 

*4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In compliance with the procedure set out in Anders, 

appellant’s attorney has shown that he sent a letter to appellant, which explained her right to 

review the record and file a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014); In re R.R., 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. In the letter to appellant, counsel stated that he had 

enclosed copies of the brief and motion to withdraw. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 313; In re R.R., 

2003 WL 21157944, at *4. 

Counsel’s letter also advised appellant that if she wished to review the appellate record, 

she must file a motion in this court. Counsel enclosed a form motion for this purpose. See Kelly, 

436 S.W.3d at 313; In re R.R., 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. However, counsel did not inform 

appellant of the deadline for filing this motion. Therefore, if appellant would like a copy of the 

appellate record, she must file the motion in this court no later than August 22, 2018. 

Additionally, if appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that she must do so on 

or before September 21, 2018. If appellant files a pro se brief, appellee may file a responsive 

brief no later than twenty days after the date appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. We 

ORDER the motion to withdraw, filed by appellant’s counsel, to be HELD IN ABEYANCE 

pending further order of the court.
_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of August, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12363]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2409]


Petition for Clarification of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

Dated: May 11, 2000.
    Petition for Clarification has been filed in the Commission's 
rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of this document is 
available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to this petition must 
be filed by June 1, 2000. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's 
rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 
10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and 
Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules (WT Docket No. 99-168)
Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12363 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
§ 18.1101 Applicability of rules. ( a ) *General provision.* These rules govern formal adversarial adjudications conducted by the United States Department of Labor before a presiding officer. ( 1 ) Which are required by Act of Congress to be determined on the record after opportunity for an administrative agency hearing in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 554, 556 and 557, or
( 2 ) Which by United States Department of Labor regulation are conducted in conformance with the foregoing provisions. *Presiding officer,* referred to in these rules as *the judge,* means an Administrative Law Judge, an agency head, or other officer who presides at the reception of evidence at a hearing in such an adjudication.
( b ) *Rules inapplicable.* The rules (other than with respect to privileges) do not apply in the following situations: ( 1 ) *Preliminary questions of fact.* The determination of questions of fact preliminary to admissibility of evidence when the issue is to be determined by the judge under § 18.104.
( 2 ) *Longshore, black lung, and related acts.* Other than with respect to §§ 18.403, 18.611(a), 18.614 and without prejudice to current practice, hearings held pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901; the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act (formerly the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act) as amended by the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901; and acts such as the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. 1651; the District of Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act, 36 DC Code 501; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331; and the Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities Act, 5 U.S.C. 8171, which incorporate section 23(a) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act by reference.
( c ) *Rules inapplicable in part.* These rules do not apply to the extent inconsistent with, in conflict with, or to the extent a matter is otherwise specifically provided by an Act of Congress, or by a rule or regulation of specific application prescribed by the United States Department of Labor pursuant to statutory authority, or pursuant to executive order.
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 of Crdentia Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Lawrence M. Davis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Dated:  August 8, 2003
# HABERN, O'NEIL & ASSOCIATES (Not a Partnership) 

### Attorneys and Counselors at Law P.O. Box 8930, Huntsvillc, Texas 77340 Phone: (936) 435-1380 Facsimile: (Mf>) 435-1089 Website: www.parolclexas.com Email: treviaf5iparoletexas.com Appointments also available in Houston Wm. T. Habern David P. O'Neil P. C. William Savoie Nancy Bunin

OfCounsel ' June 25,2015 Court ofCriminal Appeals Attn: Record Section 

## P.O. Box 12308 Q0UPJ0FCRIMINALAPPEAUS Austin, Texas 78711 „„.... 

### JUN29 2015 RE: StateofTexas v. JohnLamberton; DOB 7/31/1969

. .-•'• Cause No.: 92CR1006 and92CR1007 

### To Whom It May Concern: ": "- This office has been retained to represent Mr. Lamberton in his upcoming review by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. In preparation for that presentation, I am attempting to gather information 

### regarding Mr. Lamberton's past conduct and offense(s) of conviction. Our records indicate that Mr. Lamberton was charged andconvicted inGalveston Countywith the offensesof injuryto a child. To the extent that the records may exist in this case and are maintained in your office, this request 

### includes: copy of the trial records in both cases. We do not object to the redaction ofidentifiable information regarding the victim. Ihave included a release executed by Mr. Lamberton authorizing the release of this information 

### to our office. Upon being advised of any costs for production and/or mailing of the records related to this request, we will happily remit the required amount to your offices. 

### I anticipate that this case will enter the review process and be routed to the Board Office in the near future, so time is ofthe essence in this matter. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our offices. " -: .,; ' Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Enclosure "urvis Legal Assistant for David P. O'Neil 

# RECEIVED IN
§ 26.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part contains the rules of practice of the Administrative Review Board (ARB) when it is exercising its authority as described in paragraph (b) of this section. These rules shall govern all appeals and proceedings before the ARB except when inconsistent with a governing statute, regulation, or executive order, in which event the latter shall control.
( b ) The ARB has authority to act as the authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor in review or on appeal of decisions and recommendations as provided in Secretary's Order 01-2020 (or any successor to that order). The ARB shall act as fully and finally as the Secretary of Labor concerning such matters, except as provided in Secretary's Order 01-2020 (or any successor to that order).
----

----

III Bekanntmachungen

Rat

----

STELLENAUSSCHREIBUNG

Europäische Verteidigungsagentur

Direktoren

(2004/C 194 A/01)

Bei der Europäischen Verteidigungsagentur ist in den vier folgenden Direktionen jeweils die Stelle eines Direktors zu besetzen:

Ausführlichere Informationen (in englischer Sprache) sowie die Bewerbungsformulare sind über die Website des Rates http://ue.eu.int (Kontakt/Stellenangebote) erhältlich.

Bewerbungsfrist: 3. September 2004 (es gilt das Datum des Poststempels).

----

Europäische Stelle zur Beobachtung von Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit

----

AUFRUF ZUR EINREICHUNG VON BEWERBUNGEN HOUA-A-2004

(2004/C 194 A/02)

Die Europäische Stelle zur Beobachtung von Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit (EUMC) sucht Kandidaten zur Besetzung einer Anzahl von freien Stellen. Detaillierte Informationen zu den betreffenden Stellen, den Aufgaben der Stelle und den Bewerbungsverfahren sind auf der Internetseite der Stelle unter der folgenden Adresse veröffentlicht: http://eumc.eu.int/.

----
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12691]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Region III Advisory Council Meeting; Public Meeting

    The South Atlantic States, Regulatory Fairness Board will hold a 
public hearing on June 22, 2000, at Morgan State University, Main 
Lecture Hall, Schaefer Building, located at 5200 Perring Parkway, Room 
241, Baltimore, Maryland to receive comments and testimony from small 
businesses and representatives of trade associations concerning federal 
regulatory enforcement or compliance activities. Transcripts of these 
proceedings will be posted on the Internet. These transcripts are 
subject only to limited review by the National Ombudsman. For further 
information, call Elestine Harvey (312) 353-0880.

Bettie Baca,
Counselor to the Administrator/Public Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-12691 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
You are here: EPA Home Pesticides Science & Policy Advisory Committee Pesticide

Program Dialogue Committee Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee July 10-11, 2013 

Meeting 

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee July 10-

11, 2013 Meeting 

You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's 

PDF page to learn more. 

Agenda (PDF) (2 pp, 70k) 

Background Materials 

Session I - Updates

Resources (3 pp, 162k) 

Session II - Endangered Species Act Update 

Endangered Species Act Update (12 pp, 109k) 

Session IV- Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides 

PPDC Meeting: Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Update (35 pp, 

716k) 

Session V - 21st Century Toxicology Activities 

OPP 21st Century Activities: Guidance, Policies, and Rule (PDF) (7 pp, 180k) 

Toxicology for the 21st Century/New Integrated Testing Strategies 

Workgroup (PDF) (33 pp, 1,009k) 

Session VI - Endocrine Screening Program Update 

Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides - Stakeholder Engagement (10 

pp, 121k) 

Session VII - PPDC Work Group on Comparative Safety Statements 

Update on Dfe and Factual Statements Pilots (PDF) (4pp, 178k) 

Session VIII - Pollinator Protection

Workgroup on Pollinator Protection (PDF) (8 pp, 205k) 

Session IX- PPDC Work Group on Public Health

Update on PPDC Public Health Work Group (PDF) (7 pp, 51k) 

 

Pesticides: Science and Policy 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2013/july/july2013-mtg.html

Last updated on Friday, October 18, 2013

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee July 10-11, 2013 Meeting | Pesticides | US EPA Page 1 of 1

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2013/july/july2013-mtg.html 10/18/2013
NO ONE ATTENDED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED 

# •
§ 36.220 Admissions. ( a ) Admissions to educational institutions prior to June 24, 1973, are not covered by these Title IX regulations.
( b ) *Administratively separate units.* For the purposes only of this section, §§ 36.225 and 36.230, and §§ 36.300 through 36.310, each administratively separate unit shall be deemed to be an educational institution.
( c ) *Application of §§ 36.300 through .310.* Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, §§ 36.300 through 36.310 apply to each recipient. A recipient to which §§ 36.300 through 36.310 apply shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in admission or recruitment in violation of §§ 36.300 through 36.310.
( d ) *Educational institutions.* Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section as to recipients that are educational institutions, §§ 36.300 through 36.310 apply only to institutions of vocational education, professional education, graduate higher education, and public institutions of undergraduate higher education.
( e ) *Public institutions of undergraduate higher education.* §§ 36.300 through 36.310 do not apply to any public institution of undergraduate higher education that traditionally and continually from its establishment has had a policy of admitting students of only one sex.