alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. J. Res. 7

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

Joint Resolution 

Providing for the reappointment of Roger W. Sant as a citizen regent of the Board 

of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), 

the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 

in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring because 

of the expiration of the term of Roger W. Sant of Washington, 

D.C., is filled by the reappointment of Roger W. Sant, for a term 

of 6 years, effective October 25, 2007.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IIA 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 2 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative 

to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 12, 2007 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relative to limiting the number of terms that 

a Member of Congress may serve. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the following article is proposed as an amendment 

4 to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 

5 valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitu6 tion when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of 

7 the several States within seven years after the date of its 

8 submission by the Congress: 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•SJ 2 IS 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has served 6 terms as 

3 a Representative shall be eligible for election to the House 

4 of Representatives. For purposes of this section, the elec5 tion of a person to fill a vacancy in the House of Rep6 resentatives shall be included as 1 term in determining 

7 the number of terms that such person has served as a Rep8 resentative if the person fills the vacancy for more than 

9 1 year. 

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has served 2 terms as 

11 a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment to 

12 the Senate. For purposes of this section, the election or 

13 appointment of a person to fill a vacancy in the Senate 

14 shall be included as 1 term in determining the number 

15 of terms that such person has served as a Senator if the 

16 person fills the vacancy for more than 3 years. 

17 ‘‘SECTION 3. No term beginning before the date of 

18 the ratification of this article shall be taken into account 

19 in determining eligibility for election or appointment under 

20 this article.’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
#### § 457.18 Chief Administrative Law Judge.

*Chief Administrative Law Judge* means the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 60671 Summary Calendar

ADRIAN HARPER , Petitioner

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A027 517 587

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Adrian Harper , a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions this court for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that a favorable exercise of discretion on Harper ’s request for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) was not warranted. Harper argues that , in exercising its discretion, the BIA made erroneous findings concerning his

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 5, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-60671 Document: 00514542248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2018N o. 17

- 60671

2 criminal history and failed to consider that he has filed a postconviction challenge to his Texas conviction for evading arrest with a vehicle.
Because Harper sought cancellation of removal under § 1229b, the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) is implicated. See Rueda v. Ashcroft , 380 F.3d 83 1, 831 (5th Cir. 2004). That section provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review

-- (i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1182(h), 1182(i), 1229b, 1229c, or 1255 of this
title.” § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)

. The BIA conclude d that, under the facts of this case, Harper did “not merit a favorable exercise of discretion.” This court has no jurisdiction to review that purely discretionary decision. See § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Delgado

- Reynua v. Gonzales , 450 F.3d 596, 599

- 600 (5th C ir. 2006); Rueda , 380 F.3d at 831. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)’s jurisdictional bar is subject to § 1252(a)(2)(D) , which provides that “nothing in subparagraph (B) . . . shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law rai sed upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance
with this section.” Harper argues that t his court has jurisdiction because his procedural due process rights were violated when the Department of Homeland Security (DH S) failed to serve him with its appeal brief. The record makes clear that Harper received DHS’s appeal brief, he filed a response to it, and the BIA considered his response. He fails to state a cognizable due process
claim. See Hadwani v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Harper ’s petition for review is DISMISSED. His motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Case: 17-60671 Document: 00514542248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2018
#### Margaret Hovell, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edgar T. Hovell, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Victor J. Dowling et al., as Receivers of Interborough Rapid Transit Company, Appellants.

Submitted May 28, 1937;

decided June 11, 1937.

*A. H. Cole, Louis S. Carpenter*and *James L. Quackenbush*for appellant.

*Abraham Engelman*and *Walter Klein*for respondent.

Judgments reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence sufficient to warrant submission of the case to the jury. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs and Lough-ran, JJ. Dissenting: Lehman, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### § 405.3 Form of annual report.

On and after the effective date of this section, every employer required to file an annual report by section 203(a) of the Act and § 405.2 shall file such report on the United States Department of Labor Form LM-10 entitled, “Employer Report”[1] in the detail required by the instructions1 accompanying such form and constituting a part thereof.

[28 FR 14384, Dec. 27, 1963, as amended at 38 FR 10715, May 1, 1973; 42 FR 59070, Nov. 15, 1977]

###### Footnotes -
  405.3

[1] Filed as part of the original document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              12
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,442
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (345)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,287
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,915
<PP&E>                                           5,544
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,008)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,247
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           413
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,037)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,467
<SALES>                                          8,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,862
<CGS>                                            4,205
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,849
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    30
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     16
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 16
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        16
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS 

Walk-in Coolers and Walk-In Freezers Equipment

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Room # 1E-245 

Washington, DC 20585 

February 04, 2009 

Purpose: The Department is holding this informal public meeting as a first step in the 

energy conservation standards rulemaking process for Walk-in Coolers and Walk-In 

Freezers. This meeting is intended to familiarize stakeholders with the approach and 

analytical tools that DOE anticipates using, and as such, it is the starting point for the 

rulemaking process. The meeting will highlight issues on which DOE requests feedback 

from interested parties on the assumptions, methodology, and analytical tools DOE 

proposes to use. 

AGENDA

 9:00 – 9:05 am Welcome 

 9:05 – 9:30 am Opening Remarks, Introductions, & Agenda Review (Doug Brookman) 

 9:30 – 9:45 am Rulemaking Overview (Charles Llenza) 

 9:45 – 10:00 am Test Procedure Development (Rebecca Legett) 

 10:00 – 10:25 am Market & Technology Assessment & Screening Analysis (Rebecca Legett) 

 10:25 – 10:45 am Engineering Analysis (Aris Marantan) 

 10:45 – 11:00 am Break 

11:00 – 11:30 am Markups for Equipment Price, Energy Use, & End-Use Load Characterization 

(Marcus De La Rosa) 

11:30 am – 12:15 pm Life-Cycle Cost & Payback Period Analyses (Grant Williams) 

 12:15 – 1:15 pm Break for Lunch (on your own) 

 1:15 – 1:45 pm Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis (Grant Williams) 

 1:45 – 2:15 pm NOPR & LCC Subgroup Analyses (Sriram Somasundaram & Grant 

Williams) 

 2:15 – 2:30 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis (Aris Marantan) 

 2:30 – 3:00 pm Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, 

Environmental Assessment & Regulatory Impact Analysis (Sriram 

Somasundaram) 

 3:00 – 3:15 pm Break 

 3:15 – 4:30 pm Other Issues, Questions & Comments / Closing Remarks 

 4:30 pm Adjourn

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 13
**EXHIBIT      99.21**

**AMENDMENT      NO. 5 TO**

**LONGVIEW      FIBRE COMPANY**

**BRANCH      PLANT HOURLY EMPLOYEES' 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN**

|   | (a) | Distributions                Pursuant to QDROs.                If a QDRO so provides (or the portion of the Participant's Account                payable                to the Alternate Payee does not exceed $1,000), the portion of a                Participant's Account payable to an Alternate Payee may be distributed,                in                a form permissible under Article 12 (determined by taking into                account the size of the award), to the Alternate Payee at any time                beginning as soon as practicable after the Administrator's determination                that the domestic relations order constitutes a QDRO is made, regardless                of whether the Participant is entitled to a distribution from the                Plan at                such time. If applicable, the Alternate Payee shall be provided the                notice                prescribed by Code section 402(f). |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




Board of Directors and Stockholders of
LCS Industries, Inc.
Clifton, New Jersey

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
No. 33-12508, No. 33- 122552, No. 33-83058, No. 33-90036 and No. 33-59935 of LCS
Industries,  Inc. on Forms S-8,  S- 3, S-8,  S-8 and S-3,  respectively,  of our
report dated  November 3, 1997  (December  17, 1998 as to Note 18)  appearing in
this  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of LCS  Industries,  Inc.  for the year  ended
September 30, 1998.



/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey


December 23, 1998
#### § 525.6 Compensable time.

Individuals employed subject to this part must be compensated for all hours worked. Compensable time includes not only those hours during which the individual is actually performing productive work but also includes those hours when no work is performed but the individual is required by the employer to remain available for the next assignment. However, where the individual is completely relieved from duty and is not required to remain available for the next assignment, such time will not be considered compensable time. For example, an individual employed by a rehabilitation facility would not be engaged in a compensable activity where such individual is completely relieved from duty but is provided therapy or the opportunity to participate in an alternative program or activity in the facility not involving work and not directly related to the worker's job (e.g., self-help skills training, recreation, job seeking skills training, independent living skills, or adult basic education). The burden of establishing that such hours are not compensable rests with the facility and such hours must be clearly distinguishable from compensable hours. (For further information on compensable time in general under FLSA, see part 785 of this title.)
#### § 38.35 Equal opportunity notice/poster.

The notice must contain the following specific wording:

Equal Opportunity Is the Law

It is against the law for this recipient of Federal financial assistance to discriminate on the following bases: Against any individual in the United States, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, sex stereotyping, transgender status, and gender identity), national origin (including limited English proficiency), age, disability, or political affiliation or belief, or, against any beneficiary of, applicant to, or participant in programs financially assisted under Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, on the basis of the individual's citizenship status or participation in any WIOA Title I-financially assisted program or activity.

The recipient must not discriminate in any of the following areas:

Deciding who will be admitted, or have access, to any WIOA Title I-financially assisted program or activity;

providing opportunities in, or treating any person with regard to, such a program or activity; or

making employment decisions in the administration of, or in connection with, such a program or activity.

Recipients of federal financial assistance must take reasonable steps to ensure that communications with individuals with disabilities are as effective as communications with others. This means that, upon request and at no cost to the individual, recipients are required to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services to qualified individuals with disabilities.

What To Do If You Believe You Have Experienced Discrimination

If you think that you have been subjected to discrimination under a WIOA Title I-financially assisted program or activity, you may file a complaint within 180 days from the date of the alleged violation with either:

The recipient's Equal Opportunity Officer (or the person whom the recipient has designated for this purpose); or

The Director, Civil Rights Center (CRC), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-4123, Washington, DC 20210 or electronically as directed on the CRC Web site at *www.dol.gov/crc*.

If you file your complaint with the recipient, you must wait either until the recipient issues a written Notice of Final Action, or until 90 days have passed (whichever is sooner), before filing with the Civil Rights Center (see address above).

If the recipient does not give you a written Notice of Final Action within 90 days of the day on which you filed your complaint, you may file a complaint with CRC before receiving that Notice. However, you must file your CRC complaint within 30 days of the 90-day deadline (in other words, within 120 days after the day on which you filed your complaint with the recipient).

If the recipient does give you a written Notice of Final Action on your complaint, but you are dissatisfied with the decision or resolution, you may file a complaint with CRC. You must file your CRC complaint within 30 days of the date on which you received the Notice of Final Action.
Exhibit
      32.1





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 Visualant, Incorporated on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ended December, 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley E. Sparks,
      Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18
      U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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.




Date:
                February 20, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Bradley
              E. SparksBradley
              E. SparksTitle:
              Chief Executive Officer, President and
              Director
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                    MAPCO INC. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN MILLIONS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     1996     1995     1994     1993     1992
                                                    ------   ------   ------   ------   ------
<S>                                                 <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Earnings as defined:
  Income from continuing operations before
     provision for income taxes and minority
     interest.....................................  $214.4   $105.9   $ 80.9   $156.2   $109.3
  Fixed charges...................................    63.1     65.7     59.6     54.9     58.8
  Capitalized interest included in fixed
     charges......................................     (.5)    (1.7)             (2.8)    (2.0)
  Amortization of capitalized interest............     2.1      2.5      2.5      2.4      2.3
                                                    ------   ------   ------   ------   ------
          Total...................................  $279.1   $172.4   $143.0   $210.7   $168.4
                                                    ======   ======   ======   ======   ======
Fixed charges as defined:
  Interest and debt expense (includes amortization
     of debt expense and discount)................  $ 57.5   $ 58.4   $ 53.5   $ 46.7   $ 51.1
  Capitalized interest............................      .5      1.7               2.8      2.0
  Portion of rentals representative of the
     interest factor..............................     5.1      5.6      6.1      5.4      5.7
                                                    ------   ------   ------   ------   ------
          Total...................................  $ 63.1   $ 65.7   $ 59.6   $ 54.9   $ 58.8
                                                    ======   ======   ======   ======   ======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges................     4.4      2.6      2.4      3.8      2.9
                                                    ======   ======   ======   ======   ======
</TABLE>
Opinion issued January 13, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00011-CV

———————————

IN RE NANCY CARMEN CURNEL & RONALD CURNEL, Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Nancy Carmen Curnel and Ronald Curnel, have filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s December 14, 2022 oral denial of 

relators’ motion for sanctions seeking default judgment and to strike pleadings.1In 

conjunction with the petition, relators have filed a motion requesting an emergency 

1 The underlying case is Nancy Carmen Curnel and Ronald Curnel v. Houston 

Methodist Hospital-Willowbrook, et al., cause number 2016-36453, pending in the 

55th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Latosha Lewis Payne 

presiding.
2

stay of the underlying trial court proceedings. We deny the mandamus petition and 

dismiss the stay motion as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Hightower.