alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 4

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile

defense.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Missile Defense Act

of 1999’’.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as

is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense

system capable of defending the territory of the United States

against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental,

unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding subject to the annual

authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of

funds for National Missile Defense.

SEC. 3. POLICY ON REDUCTION OF RUSSIAN NUCLEAR FORCES.

It is the policy of the United States to seek continued negotiated

reductions in Russian nuclear forces.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
§ 334.505 St. Johns River, U.S. Coast Guard Station Mayport, Sector Jacksonville, Florida; restricted area. ( a ) *The area.* The restricted area encompasses all navigable waters of the United States as defined at 33 CFR part 329, within the area bounded by a line connecting the following coordinates: Commencing from the shoreline at latitude 30°23.315366′ N, longitude 081°26.056735′ W; thence directly to latitude 30°23.325775′ N, longitude 081°26.071548′ W; thence directly to latitude 30°23.266063′ N, longitude 081°26.132775′ W; thence to latitude 30°23.215082′ N, longitude 081°26.1287404′ W; thence proceed directly to a point on the shoreline at latitude 30°23.204522′ N, longitude 081°26.111753′ W thence following the mean high water line to the point of beginning. The datum for these coordinates is WGS84.
( b ) *The regulation.* ( 1 ) The restricted area described in paragraph (a) of this section is only open to U.S. Government vessels. U.S. Government vessels include, but are not limited to, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, Department of Defense, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, state and local law enforcement, emergency services and vessels under contract with the U.S. Government. Warning signs notifying individuals of the restricted area boundary and prohibiting all unauthorized entry into the area will be posted along the property boundary.
( 2 ) All persons, vessels and other craft are prohibited from entering, transiting, drifting, dredging or anchoring within the restricted area described in paragraph (a) of this section without prior approval from the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Mayport or his/her designated representative.
( 3 ) Fishing, trawling, net-fishing and other aquatic activities are prohibited in the restricted area without prior approval from the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Mayport or his/her designated representative.
( 4 ) The restrictions described in paragraph (b) of this section are in effect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
( c ) *Enforcement.* The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Mayport and/or such persons or agencies as he/she may designate.
[80 FR 9386, Feb. 23, 2015]
#### ANDREW J. BELKNAP, Respondent, *v.*WENDELL M. BENDER, Appellant.

*Statute of frauds —promise to pay debt of another.*

A being indebted to B for sawing lumber at A’s mill, conveyed his property to 0, who hired B to continue the running of the mill, saying that he would -pay him the same that A had paid him, and saying further, that he had made arrangements with A to pay A’s debt to the plaintiff, and that he would pay him the back pay that was coming to him. *Held,*that the agreement to pay A’s debt was void under the statute of frauds. *(Pfeiffer*v. *Adler,*37 N. Y., 164; *Mallory*v. *Gillet,*21 id., 412.)

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a# jury, rendered at the Lewis Circuit in June, 1874.

*C. D.*Adams, for the appellant.

*J. Thomas Spriggs,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Morgan, J.

Present — Mullin, P. J., Smith and Morgan, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5011

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the option to

use rebased target amounts to all sole community hospitals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 27, 2000

Mr. BALDACCI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend

the option to use rebased target amounts to all sole

community hospitals.

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 ‘‘Sole Community Hos5 pital Fair Payment Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF OPTION TO USE REBASED TARGET

7 AMOUNTS TO ALL SOLE COMMUNITY HOS8 PITALS.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886(b)(3)(I)(i) of the

10 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(I)(i)) (as
2

•HR 5011 IH

1 added by section 405 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and

2 SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (113

3 Stat. 1501A–372), as enacted into law by section

4 1000(a)(6) of Public Law 106–113) is amended—

5 (1) in the matter preceding subclause (I)—

6 (A) by striking ‘‘for its cost reporting pe7 riod beginning during 1999 is paid on the basis

8 of the target amount applicable to the hospital

9 under subparagraph (C) and that’’; and

10 (B) by striking ‘‘such target amount’’ and

11 inserting ‘‘the amount otherwise determined

12 under subsection (d)(5)(D)(i)’’;

13 (2) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘target amount

14 otherwise applicable’’ and all that follows through

15 ‘‘target amount’)’’ and inserting ‘‘the amount other16 wise applicable to the hospital under subsection

17 (d)(5)(D)(i) (referred to in this clause as the ‘sub18 section (d)(5)(D)(i) amount’)’’; and

19 (3) in each of subclauses (II) and (III), by

20 striking ‘‘subparagraph (C) target amount’’ and in21 serting ‘‘subsection (d)(5)(D)(i) amount’’.

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

23 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact24 ment of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced
3

•HR 5011 IH

1 Budget Refinement Act of 1999, as enacted into law by

2 section 1000(a)(6) of Public Law 106–113.

Æ
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Southern District of Florida

CURTIS J. JACKSON, III p/k/a 50 CENT,

1:22-cv-22972-RNS

ANGELA KOGAN, PERFECTION PLASTIC

SURGERY, INC. d/b/a PERFECTION PLASTIC

SURGERY & MEDSPA, and THE SHADE ROOM,

LLC d/b/a THE SHADE ROOM,

The Shade Room, LLC

1880 Century Park East, Suite 950

Los Angeles, California 90067

Joseph Rebak, Esq.

Alejandro J. Paz, Esq.

AKERMAN LLP

Three Brickell City Centre

98 Southeast Seventh Street, Suite 1100

Miami, Florida 33131

Jan 17, 2023 s/ Esperanza Buchhorst

Case 1:22-cv-22972-RNS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2023 Page 1 of 1
| 2009      Corporate Accounts Board Bookings Plan                                                                                       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                   | Commission      on Bookings |
| Commission,      Paid Quarterly, on New Bookings plus Quarterly Cash Payments from Retained      Clients (“Bookings”) |  Quarterly      commission with annual over-achievement Quarterly Bookings Achievement      as % of Plan                               %Commission    0-79%                                                                                              0%   80-99%                                                                                          10%   100-109%                                                                                      15%   110%      and      above                                                                            20% Commission      rate applies retroactively to bookings in excess of 79%      of  Target Bookings Over-Achievement If      annual bookings exceed 120% of Plan, 10% maximum retroactive commission      will apply.  |
| Draw                                                                                                                                   |  Onvia      will provide you with a monthly draw commensurate with your target      bookings and adjusted quarterly based on your ongoing progress toward the      target bookings  |
| Additional      Support                                                                                                                |  If      you are tracking to 112% in Q1 bookings, Onvia will consider the addition      of a full-time AE to work for you, whose bookings will count toward your      target bookings.  |
| Annual      Management Incentive Plan Achievement                                                                                      | Achieve      Three Key Measures for 2009, plus 100% of Annual  Bookings |
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Protection of Neutrals","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"QDkBklJNT0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/24-protection\/\">Protection of Neutrals<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/24-protection\/embed\/#?secret=QDkBklJNT0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Protection of Neutrals” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"QDkBklJNT0\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SAVE OUR ALLIES, LLC

PLAINTIFF(S) 

v.

GREGORY GUSTIN, et al.,

DEFENDANT(S). 

CASE NUMBER

 1:22−cv−22981−JEM

DEFAULT BY CLERK F.R.Civ.P.55(a)

Clerk's Default

 It appearing that the defendant(s) herein, is/are in default for failure to appear, answer, or otherwise plead

to the complaint filed herein within the time required by law.

Default is hereby entered against defendant(s)

Matthew Nelson

as of course, on the date November 30, 2022.

Angela E. Noble

CLERK OF COURT

By /s/ Dimas Rodriguez

Deputy Clerk

cc: Judge Jose E. Martinez

 Save Our Allies, LLC

DEFAULT BY CLERK F.R.Civ.P.55(a)

CV−37 (10/01)

Case 1:22-cv-22981-JEM Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 1 of 1
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4718

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 27, 2000

Received

JULY 27, 2000

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To extend for 3 additional months the period for which

chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 4718 RFS

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

2 Section 149 of title I of division C of Public Law

3 105–277, as amended by Public Law 106–5 and Public

4 Law 106–70, is amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘July 1, 2000’’ each place it ap6 pears and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2000’’; and

7 (2) in subsection (a)—

8 (A) by striking ‘‘September 30, 1999’’ and

9 inserting ‘‘June 30, 2000’’; and

10 (B) by striking ‘‘October 1, 1999’’ and in11 serting ‘‘July 1, 2000’’.

12 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

13 The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect

14 on July 1, 2000.

Passed the House of Representatives June 26, 2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 15.1


February 3, 2006

Aceto Corporation
Lake Success, New York

We are aware that Aceto Corporation and subsidiaries has incorporated by
reference in its Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-38679, No.
333-90929, and No. 333-110653) our report dated February 3, 2006, relating to
the Company's unaudited interim consolidated financial statements appearing in
its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2005.
Pursuant to Regulation C under the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not
considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our
firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. It should be noted that we have not performed any
procedures subsequent to February 3, 2006.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

Melville, New York
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04

- 14

- 00672

- CR IN RE Mauricio BALDERAS Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 1, 2014 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On September 24, 2014, relator Mauricio Balderas filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus raising issues related to his underlying felony conviction . In November 2012, relator was convicted of indecency with a child with contact , a second degree felony , and sentenced to fifteen years’ confinement
. See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 21.11 (West 2011 ). On March 27, 2013, this court dismissed relator’ s direct appeal from the judgment of conviction in Cause No. 04

- 12

- 00793

- CR, styled Balderas v. State , because the trial court ’s certification reflected that the defendant had no right of appeal given his written plea bargain agreement. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 25.2(d). 2 Therefore, relator’s felony conviction became final.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011CR0555, styled The State of Texas v. Mauricio Balderas , pending in the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Melisa Skinner presiding. 2 See Balderas v. State , No. 04

- 12

- 00 793

- CR, 2013 WL 1225872, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Mar. 27, 2013, no pet.).04

- 14

- 00672

- CR Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has juris diction over matters related to post

conviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2014); Board of Pa rdons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist. , 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding “Article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction.”). Because the relief sought in relator’s petition
r elates to post

- conviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction, we are without jurisdiction to consider his petition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, relator’s petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
Case 0:00-cr-06024-PAS Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2000 Page 1 of 5
Case 0:00-cr-06024-PAS Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2000 Page 2 of 5
Case 0:00-cr-06024-PAS Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2000 Page 3 of 5
Case 0:00-cr-06024-PAS Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2000 Page 4 of 5
Case 0:00-cr-06024-PAS Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2000 Page 5 of 5
RE: Additional Interagency Comments on RIN 2060-AP52 Higgins, Cortney to: Bill Maxwell 03/09/2011 03:16 PM Cc: RobertJ Wayland

I believe the commenter is referring to the following sections: IV. Summary of this Proposed NESHAP G. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? H. What are the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) requirements? I. What are the testing requirements?

Please let me know if you have additional questions.

Regards, Cortney

-----Original Message----- From: Maxwell.Bill@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Maxwell.Bill@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 2:05 PM To: Higgins, Cortney Cc: Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Re: Additional Interagency Comments on RIN 2060-AP52

Cortney --

Thanks. I've distributed the comments to the appropriate staff.

One question on the comment:

Is the summary of NESHAP requirements that appear on pages 316-321 complete? To the extent that this is not a complete summary, we recommend that EPA provide a more complete summary of all NESHAP requirements at the top of section IV.

I don't find anything on pages 316 - 321 of the February 18th draft preamble that applies to the question (these pages discuss the emission limitations). Could you clarify?

Thanks.

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919-541-5430
FAX: 919-541-5450

------------ From: "Higgins, Cortney" Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.govTo: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Thundiyil/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/09/2011 01:44 PM Subject: Additional Interagency Comments on RIN 2060-AP52

Hi Bob, Attached you will find additional interagency comments on RIN 2060-AP52. Additionally, the comments on Chapter 9 of the RIA, as well as some of the TSDs, are forthcoming.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks! Cortney

________________________________________________ Cortney Higgins Policy Analyst OMB/OIRA/NRE
202.395.7856 chiggins@omb.eop.gov [attachment "Summary of Interagency Working Comments on draft EGU MACT under EO 12866 Interagency Review_ 03 09 2011.doc" deleted by Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1048

BEVERLY BARFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-208-5-BO) Submitted: July 26, 2004 Decided: August 10, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sabrina Gicola, H. RUSSELL VICK & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, UnitedStates Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, David J. Cortes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Beverly Barfield appeals the district court’s order dismissing her action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny Barfield’s application for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and the decision of the administrative law judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Barfield v. Barnhart , No. CA-03-208-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 3, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 97.210 Appeals. ( a ) A vessel owner or operator, or person acting on their behalf, who disagrees with a decision of a CSM approval authority may submit a written appeal to the approval authority requesting reconsideration of information in dispute. Within 30 days of receiving the appeal, the approval authority must provide the submitter with a final written ruling on the request, with a copy to the Commandant.
( b ) A submitter who is dissatisfied with the approval authority's final written ruling may appeal directly to the Commandant. The appeal must be made in writing and include the documentation and supporting evidence the submitter wants to be considered, and may ask the Commandant to stay the effect of the appealed decision while it is under review by the Commandant.
( c ) The Commandant will make a decision on the appeal and send a formal response to the submitter and a copy to the approval authority. The Commandant's decision will constitute final agency action on the appeal request.
Editorial Note on Part 67
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 67 appear by USCG-2001-10714, 69 FR 24983, 24984, May 5, 2004.

§ 67.35-5 Contents of application. ( a ) All applicable items of the prescribed forms shall be completed. A brief descriptive print of the structure or aid to navigation involved shall be furnished with the application, together with a location plat or chart section. When Lambert coordinates are used to plot the position of the aid, the plat or chart shall be annotated to show latitude and longitude of the proposed aid to navigation, except when the position has been described by reference to one or more horizontal angles, or by the bearing and distance from a charted landmark.
( b ) Each application shall have appended to it a list showing the type, model, name and address of the manufacturer of the lighting apparatus and sound signal equipment to be used.
( c ) Each application shall always specify the date the proposals contained therein are desired to be effective, and approval thereof must be obtained before the proposed action is undertaken.