alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 560

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 designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at the

intersection of Comercio and San Justo Streets, in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as

the ‘‘Jose ́ V. Toledo Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Federal building and United States courthouse located

at the intersection of Comercio and San Justo Streets, in San

Juan, Puerto Rico, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Jose ́

V. Toledo Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in any law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building and

United States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

to be a reference to the ‘‘Jose ́ V. Toledo Federal Building and

United States Courthouse’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

34 36 38 40 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
§ 334.590 Atlantic Ocean off Cape Canaveral, Fla.; Air Force missile testing area, Patrick Air Force Base, Fla. ( a ) *The danger zone.* An area in the Atlantic Ocean immediately offshore from Cape Canaveral defined by a line 3 nautical miles from shore, said area terminating in the north at a line on a bearing of 70° from a point on shore at approximate latitude 28°35′ north and in the south at a line on a bearing of 115° from a point on the shore at approximate latitude 28°25′ north.
( b ) *The regulations.* ( 1 ) All unauthorized persons and vessels are prohibited from operating within the danger zone during firing periods to be specified by the Commander, Air Force Missile Test Center, Patrick Air Force Base.
( 2 ) Warning signals will be used to warn persons and vessels that the danger zone is active. These signals will be in the form of a large red ball and a red flashing high intensity beacon. One signal will be located on a 90-foot pole near the shoreline at the north end of the danger zone, and one signal will be located on a 90-foot pole near the shoreline about one-half mile north of the south limit of the danger zone. An amber rotating beacon and warning sign will be erected on the north side of the Port Canaveral ship channel to indicate to vessels about to leave the harbor that the danger zone is in use.
( 3 ) When the signals in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are displayed, all persons and vessels, except those authorized personnel and patrol vessels, will immediately leave the danger zone by the most direct route and stay out until the signals are discontinued.
( 4 ) The regulations in this paragraph shall be enforced by the Commander, Air Force Missile Test Center, Patrick Air Force Base, Fla., and such agencies as he may designate.
[22 FR 4814, July 9, 1957, as amended at 23 FR 3716, May 29, 1958; 27 FR 4778, May 19, 1962. Redesignated at 50 FR 42696, Oct. 22, 1985, as amended at 62 FR 17554, Apr. 10, 1997]
#### § 102-2.105 What information must agencies include in their follow-up analysis?

In your follow-up analysis, provide information that may include, but should not be limited to, specific actions taken or not taken as a result of the deviation, outcomes, impacts, anticipated versus actual results, and the advantages and disadvantages of taking an alternative course of action.
Exhibit 32








Certification of Chief Executive Officer


and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned, Roger S. Marcus, Chief Executive Officer, and Howard N. Feist III, Chief Financial Officer, of American Biltrite Inc. (the “Company”), each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:




The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 of the Company as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.










Date:  August 13, 2010


/s/ Roger S. Marcus


Roger S. Marcus


Chief Executive Officer











/s/ Howard N. Feist III


Howard N. Feist III


Chief Financial Officer
H. R. 609

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 amend the Export Apple and Pear Act to limit the applicability of the Act

to apples.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SCOPE OF EXPORT APPLE AND PEAR ACT.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—The Act of June 10, 1933 (7 U.S.C. 581

et seq.; commonly known as the Export Apple and Pear Act), is

amended by adding at the end the following new section:

‘‘SEC. 11. This Act may be cited as the ‘Export Apple Act’.’’.

(b) DEFINITION OF APPLES.—Section 9 of such Act (7 U.S.C.

589) is amended by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following new paragraph:

‘‘(4) The term ‘apples’ means fresh whole apples, whether or

not the apples have been in storage.’’.

(c) ELIMINATION OF REFERENCES TO PEARS.—Such Act is further

amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and/or pears’’ each place it appears in

the first section and sections 5 and 6; and

(2) by striking ‘‘or pears’’ each place it appears in the

first section and sections 2, 3, and 4.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
§ 102-3.80 How are charter amendments accomplished? The agency head is responsible for amending the charter of an advisory committee. Amending any existing advisory committee charter does not constitute renewal of the advisory committee under § 102-3.60. The procedures for making changes and filing amended charters will depend upon the authority basis for the advisory committee, as stated in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section: ( a ) *Non-discretionary advisory committees.* The agency head must ensure that any changes made to current charters are consistent with the relevant authority. When Congress by law, or the President by Presidential directive (*e.g.,* E.O.), changes the authorizing language that has been the basis for establishing an advisory committee, the agency head or the chairperson of an independent Presidential advisory committee must amend those sections of the current charter affected by the new statute or Presidential directive (*e.g.,* E.O.); file the amended charter as specified in § 102-3.70; and notify the public as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Discretionary advisory committees.* The charter of a discretionary advisory committee must be amended when an agency head determines that provisions of a filed charter are inaccurate, specific provisions have changed or become obsolete with the passing of time, or advisory committees need to be merged. Amendments could also include changing the name of the advisory committee, advisory committee authority, number of members, estimated number or frequency of meetings, objectives and scope, duties, and estimated costs. The agency must amend the charter language as necessary and the agency must: ( 1 ) First consult with the Secretariat and explain the purpose of the changes and why they are necessary. The Secretariat will notify the agency when the consultation process is complete.
( 2 ) Upon receiving notice from the Secretariat that the consultation is complete, file the amended charter as specified in § 102-3.70, and notify the public as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Public notification of charter amendments.* Agencies must post an announcement and a copy of the charter amendment on the advisory committee website. If an advisory committee website is not available, the agency must publish a notice of amendment in the Federal Register. Federal Register notice publishing and website posting of charter amendments may be performed concurrently with the filing of the charter. The publishing requirement in the Federal Register does not apply to a non-discretionary advisory committee if the amendment was the result of a legislative change or Presidential directive.
----

|                                                                                                      |   | THIRTEENWEEKS                  ENDED |    |   | TWENTY-SIXWEEKS                  ENDED |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|---------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                      |   | December 1,                     |    |   | December 2,                       |   |   | December 1, |   |   | December 2, |   |
|                                                                                                      |   | 2007                                 |    |   | 2006                                   |   |   | 2007 |   |   | 2006 |   |
|                                                                                                      |   |                                 |    |   |                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net                  income for computing income                  per common share                        |   | $                                    | 3,694   |   |                                   | $      | 3,231 |   |   | $ | 52,522 |   |   | $ | 23,578 |   |
|                                                                                                      |   |                                 |    |   |                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted                  average number of common                  shares outstanding during each period |   |                                 | 783,836 |   |                                   |   | 790,191 |   |   |   | 784,758 |   |   |   | 794,076 |   |
|                                                                                                      |   |                                 |    |   |                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net                  income per common                  share                                             |   | $                                    | 0.005   |   |                                   | $      | 0.004 |   |   | $ | 0.067 |   |   | $ | 0.030 |   |

----
603 P.2d 993

#### Donnell HOYT, Claimant-Appellant, v. MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY, INC., Employer, Defendant-Respondent, and Department of Employment, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 13137.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Dec. 4, 1979.

*660Ronald R. Rowland, Pocatello, for claimant-appellant.

Stephen G. Hanks, Boise, for defendant-respondent Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc.

Hon. David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., R. La-Var Marsh, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Roger B. Madsen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for defendant-respondent Department of Employment.

Before DONALDSON, C. J., SHEPARD and BAKES, JJ., and THOMAS and MAYNARD, JJ., Pro Tem.

PER CURIAM.

Claimant-appellant was employed by Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. as a laborer for approximately one year. In February 1978 he was discharged from his employment. As a result of negotiations between his union and the company, he was reinstated about a week later. When he returned to work, appellant was assigned to work in the scrap yard removing nails from used lumber and stacking the boards. Appellant worked alone at his task for about two hours but, finding the work heavy and conditions difficult, he informed his foreman he could not handle the job and left the job site.

The Department of Employment found appellant ineligible for unemployment benefits on the ground he voluntarily quit his job without good cause. A referee for the Industrial Commission affirmed the original determination. In this appeal, appellant contends the finding that he voluntarily quit his job without good cause is not supported by competent and substantial evidence and that hearsay evidence was improperly admitted at the hearings below. We affirm the decision of the Industrial Commission finding appellant ineligible for unemployment benefits.

This Court will sustain the findings of fact of the Industrial Commission if supported by substantial and competent evidence. *Rogers v. Trim House,*99 Idaho 746, 588 P.2d 945 (1979). Our review of the record shows ample such evidence to support the finding appellant voluntarily quit his job in the absence of good cause for leaving.

We reject appellant’s argument that admission in evidence of hearsay at the *661administrative hearings constituted error. Our Administrative Procedure Act provides that in contested cases, “[t]he rules of evidence as applied in non-jury civil cases in the district courts of this state shall be followed. When necessary to ascertain facts not reasonably susceptible of proof under those rules, evidence not admissible thereunder may be admitted, except where precluded by statute, if it is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs. . ” I.C. § 67-5210(1). In our view, this liberality as to the admission of evidence allows hearsay evidence to be admitted in hearings before the Commission at the discretion of the hearing officer. Appellant has shown no abuse of discretion in this case.

Affirmed.
loadjs=function(){var h=function(){},c={},u={},f={};function o(e,n){if(e){var r=f[e];if(u[e]=n,r)for(;r.length;)r[0](e,n),r.splice(0,1)}}function l(e,n){e.call&&(e={success:e}),n.length?(e.error||h)(n):(e.success||h)(e)}function d(r,t,s,i){var c,o,e=document,n=s.async,u=(s.numRetries||0)+1,f=s.before||h,l=r.replace(/[\?|#].*$/,""),a=r.replace(/^(css|img)!/,"");i=i||0,/(^css!|\.css$)/.test(l)?((o=e.createElement("link")).rel="stylesheet",o.href=a,(c="hideFocus"in o)&&o.relList&&(c=0,o.rel="preload",o.as="style")):/(^img!|\.(png|gif|jpg|svg|webp)$)/.test(l)?(o=e.createElement("img")).src=a:((o=e.createElement("script")).src=r,o.async=void 0===n||n),!(o.onload=o.onerror=o.onbeforeload=function(e){var n=e.type[0];if(c)try{o.sheet.cssText.length||(n="e")}catch(e){18!=e.code&&(n="e")}if("e"==n){if((i+=1)<u)return d(r,t,s,i)}else if("preload"==o.rel&&"style"==o.as)return o.rel="stylesheet";t(r,n,e.defaultPrevented)})!==f(r,o)&&e.head.appendChild(o)}function r(e,n,r){var t,s;if(n&&n.trim&&(t=n),s=(t?r:n)||{},t){if(t in c)throw"LoadJS";c[t]=!0}function i(n,r){!function(e,t,n){var r,s,i=(e=e.push?e:[e]).length,c=i,o=[];for(r=function(e,n,r){if("e"==n&&o.push(e),"b"==n){if(!r)return;o.push(e)}--i||t(o)},s=0;s<c;s++)d(e[s],r,n)}(e,function(e){l(s,e),n&&l({success:n,error:r},e),o(t,e)},s)}if(s.returnPromise)return new Promise(i);i()}return r.ready=function(e,n){return function(e,r){e=e.push?e:[e];var n,t,s,i=[],c=e.length,o=c;for(n=function(e,n){n.length&&i.push(e),--o||r(i)};c--;)t=e[c],(s=u[t])?n(t,s):(f[t]=f[t]||[]).push(n)}(e,function(e){l(n,e)}),r},r.done=function(e){o(e,[])},r.reset=function(){c={},u={},f={}},r.isDefined=function(e){return e in c},r}();
Editorial Note on Subpart 101-6.2 of Part 101-6
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 101-6 appear at 68 FR 51373, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 101-6.215-1 Effect on other regulations. All regulations, orders, or like directions heretofore issued by any officer of GSA which imposed requirements designed to prohibit any discrimination against individuals on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program to which this subpart 101-6.2 applies, and which authorize the suspension or termination of or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance to any applicant for or recipient of such assistance for failure to comply with such requirements, are hereby superseded to the extent that such discrimination is prohibited by this subpart, except that nothing in this subpart shall be deemed to relieve any person of any obligation assumed or imposed under any such superseded regulation, order, instruction, or like direction prior to the effective date of this subpart. Nothing in this subpart, however, shall be deemed to supersede any of the following (including future amendments thereof): ( a ) Executive Orders 10925, 11114, and 11246, and regulations issued thereunder.
( b ) Any other orders, regulations, or instructions, insofar as such orders, regulations, or instructions prohibit discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin in any program or situation to which this subpart is inapplicable, or prohibit discrimination on any other ground.
[29 FR 16287, Dec. 4, 1964, as amended at 38 FR 17975, July 5, 1973]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6101

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HENRY CHESTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CR-94-665, CA-98-3540-4-22)

Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 16, 2000

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Chester, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Alfred William

Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Chester seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Chester, Nos. CR-94-665; CA-98-

3540-4-22 (D.S.C. Dec. 1, 1999). 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN CONSUMERS, INC. FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
AUGUST 31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,034,733
<SECURITIES>                                   604,288
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,649,934
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,453,609
<PP&E>                                       2,854,776
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,626,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,700,391
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,487,608
<BONDS>                                        435,487
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,465
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,491,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,700,391
<SALES>                                      7,249,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,249,545
<CGS>                                        5,678,257
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,678,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,464,809
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,968
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 80,425
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,824
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             53,601
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,601
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.058
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.058
        

</TABLE>
§ 102-3.70 What are the charter filing requirements? No advisory committee may meet or take any action until a charter has been filed by the CMO or by another agency official designated by the agency head. ( a ) *Requirement for discretionary advisory committees.* To amend a charter, or establish (including due to a merger), renew, or reestablish a discretionary advisory committee, a charter must be filed with: ( 1 ) The agency head;
( 2 ) The standing committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives having legislative jurisdiction of the agency, the date of filing with which constitutes the official date of establishment for the advisory committee;
( 3 ) The Library of Congress; and
( 4 ) The Secretariat, indicating the date the charter was filed in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( b ) *Requirement for non-discretionary advisory committees.* Charter filing requirements for non-discretionary advisory committees are the same as those in paragraph (a) of this section, except that the date of establishment, renewal, or reestablishment for a Presidential advisory committee is the date the charter is filed with the Secretariat.
( c ) *Requirement for subcommittees that report directly to the Government.* Subcommittees that report directly to a Federal officer or agency must comply with this subpart and be chartered as a new advisory committee as they are no longer functioning as a subcommittee.