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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 787 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 787

To amend title 10, United States Code, to clarify the authority of the 
 Secretary of Defense to transfer to Federal and State agencies excess 
personal property of the Department of Defense suitable for use in law 
                              enforcement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1999

 Mr. Condit (for himself and Mr. Ortiz) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to clarify the authority of the 
 Secretary of Defense to transfer to Federal and State agencies excess 
personal property of the Department of Defense suitable for use in law 
                              enforcement.

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

SECTION 1. SALE OR DONATION OF EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY OF DEPARTMENT 
              OF DEFENSE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.

    Section 2576a(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, including small arms 
        and ammunition,'' and inserting ``described in paragraph (3)''; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(3) The types of excess personal property that may be transferred 
under this section include--
            ``(A) small arms, ammunition, protective equipment, 
        vehicles, and other personal property with a direct application 
        in law enforcement activities; and
            ``(B) personal property, such as construction materials, 
        intended to enhance the training, safety, or working conditions 
        of law enforcement officers.''.
                                 <all>
```
October 27, 2015

Mr. Joseph W. Dinwiddie

29020 Old Cherry Lane

Lebanon, MO 65539

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

§ § 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(l), 91.409(a)(l ) and (a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b), of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you

should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your July 31, 2015 exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 3289 , but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, yo u must

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps ans wer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
§ 301-71.206 What must we do if we disallow a travel claim? You must: ( a ) Pay the employee the amount of the travel claim which is not in dispute;
( b ) Notify the employee that the claim was disallowed with a detailed explanation of why; and
( c ) Tell the employee how to appeal the disallowance if the employee desires an appeal, and your process and schedule for deciding the appeal.
[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15974, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12252, Feb. 16, 2024]
§ 301-70.200 What governing policies must we establish for authorization and payment of per diem expenses? You must establish policies and procedures governing: ( a ) Who will authorize a rest period;
( b ) Circumstances allowing a rest period during prolonged travel (see § 301-11.20 for minimum standards);
( c ) If, and in what instances, you will allow an employee to return to their official station on non-workdays;
( d ) Who will determine if an employee will be allowed to return to their official station on a case by case basis.
( e ) Who will determine in what instances you will pay a reduced per diem rate;
( f ) Who will determine, and in what instances, to issue a blanket authorization for actual expenses under § 301-70.201 or when actual expenses are appropriate in individual cases; and
( g ) Who will determine, and in what instances, an employee will be able to claim the full M&IE allowance even though meals are furnished to the employee by the Government, in accordance with §§ 301-11.18(b) and 301-11.18(c).
[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15971, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2009-03, 74 FR 16329, Apr. 10, 2009; FTR Amdt. 2010-07, 75 FR 72967, Nov. 29, 2010; FTR Amdt. 2011-03, 76 FR 55275, Sept. 7, 2011; FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12252, Feb. 16, 2024]
# Comments on: 22-107: In Re MEDTRONIC, INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential
No. 10-10993.

#### Salahuddin, aka Saladin *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 11.1

                              ANDERSEN GROUP, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                   FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 31, 1997
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

<S>                                                             <C>                <C>                             <C>

                                                                                 NUMBER OF SHARES OF
                                                                                 COMMON STOCK AND
                                                                                   COMMON STOCK
                                                                                    EQUIVALENTS
                                                                                    OUTSTANDING


                                                                 NET INCOME

Calculation of Primary Earnings Per Share:
Unadjusted amounts                                                  $2,040,000            1,934,478
Impact of exercise of stock options,
  Net of treasury shares that could be
  Repurchased using average price of
  Common stock of $6.03 per share                                             -              22,256
                                                              ------------------        -----------
                                                                    $2,040,000            1,956,734
                                                                    ==========            =========
Primary Earnings Per Share                                                                                     $1.04

Calculation of Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share:
Unadjusted amounts                                                  $2,040,000            1,934,478
Impact of conversion of 10.5%
  Convertible Subordinated Debentures                                   94,000              370,322
Impact of conversion of
  Preferred Stock                                                       97,000              496,227
Impact of exercise of stock
  Options, net of treasury shares
  That could be repurchased using
  Period end price of $6.75 per share                                          -             26,329
                                                              ------------------       ------------
                                                                    $2,231,000            2,827,356
                                                                    ==========            =========

Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share                                                                               $0.79

</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb $>tates**~ourt** 

# of**~peaIs** 

# fortbejf 

# eberaI (!Circuit
CLEARVALUE, INC., Plaintiff, AND 

### RICHARD ALAN HAASE, Plaintiff-Appellant, 

### v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC., POLYCHEMIE, INC., SNF, INC., POLYDYNE, INC., AND 

### SNF HOLDING COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees. 2012-1595 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in case no. 06-CV-0197, Chief Judge Leonard Davis.

### ON MOTION ORDER Case: 12-1595 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 09/24/2012CLEARV ALUE, INC. V. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC. 2 Richard Alan Haase moves for a 60-day extension of time, until December 14, 2012, to file his brief. Haase states that the appellees oppose. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT 

## SEP 24 2012 Date

cc: Richard Alan Haase Howard L. Close, Esq. s27 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk FILED U.S. COURTOFAPPEALS FOR THE**F"7nr:~,",** 1 r.'RClIIT



### SEP 24**~Ul~** 

### JANHORBALY 

### CLERK Case: 12-1595 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 09/24/2012
No. 11-9527.

#### Graves *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### MARGARET DICKSON, et al. v. ROBERT RUCHO, et al. NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF THE NAACP, et al. v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.

From Wake County

No. 201PA12-3

ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellants’ Rule 31 Petition for Rehearing is denied as to the second and third issues. As to the remaining first issue, plaintiff-appellants’ petition is dismissed on procedural grounds. Plaintiff-appellants waived review of this argument by failing to raise it in their brief on remand. *See*N.C. R. App. P. 28(a) (“Issues not presented and discussed in a party’s brief are deemed abandoned.”); N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (“Issues not presented in a party’s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated, will be taken as abandoned.”).

This Court’s 18 December 2015 opinion is modified as follows: the sentence stating “Alabama’s Constitution does not contain a Whole County Provision” is deleted, and the words in the next sentence, “that state,” are replaced with the word, “Alabama.” *Dickson v. Rucho,*No. 201PA12-3, 2015 N.C. LEXIS 1281, at *34 (Dec. 18, 2015).

By order of the Court in Conference, this 11th day of February, 2016.

s/Ervin. J.

For the Court

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 11th day of February, 2016.

CHRISTIE S. CAMERON ROEDER Clerk of the Supreme Court

s/M.C. Hacknev Assistant Clerk
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 Wyeth (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 12, 2003 (the Report), I, Kenneth J. Martin,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.



Dated: November 12, 2003

                            By /s/         Kenneth J. Martin
                               -----------------------------------------
                                           Kenneth J. Martin
                                     Executive Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q/A of Moscow CableCom Corp. for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Mikhail A. Smirnov, Chief Executive Officer, and Tate Fite, Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(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 Moscow CableCom Corp.



|October 24, 2006 | /s/    MIKHAIL A. SMIRNOV
|---------------- | -------------------------
|                 | Mikhail A. Smirnov       
|                 | Chief Executive Officer  
|October 24, 2006 | /s/    TATE FITE         
|                 | Tate Fite                
|                 | Chief Financial Officer  





This certification shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: September 24, 2014

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Ray Saracino, EPA Region 9

SUBJECT: September 24, 2014, Meeting with California Officials Regarding Proposed Clean

Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on September 24, 2014

to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014 and published in the Federal Register on 

June 18, 2014.

ATTENDEES

External Stakeholders

Grant Cope, Cal EPA

Edie Chang, Air Resources Board (ARB)

Tung Le, ARB

Craig Segall, ARB

Chris Gallenstein, ARB

Aaron Livingston, ARB

Karen Magliano, ARB

Kurt Karperos, ARB

Jason Grey, ARB

EPA

Howard Hoffman, EPA HQs

Reid Harvey, EPA HQs

Kevin Culligan, EPA HQs

Kellie Ortega, EPA HQs

Deborah Jordan, EPA R9

Amy Zimpfer, EPA R9

Jeanhee Hong, EPA R9

Nina Spiegelman, EPA R9

Anita Lee, EPA R9

Ray Saracino, EPA R9
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# Contact Person for More Information: 

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204. 

# Supplementary Information: 

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. 

Dated: June 21, 2000. 

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-16148 Filed 6-21-00; 4:38 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE SPENCER, PLLC,

LPH, INC, a Montana Corporation, GEISZLER

STEELE, PC, and John Does 1-5,

Defendants and Appellees.

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court:

State of Montana

ORDER

Appellant Terry Wallace has filed an Appellant's M.R.App.P. 7(4)(g) Affidavit

stating that he is unable to afford appellate mediation.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter shall proceed without mediation.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Terry Wallace and to all

counsel of record.

DATED this 1 Z._ day of January, 2021.

For the Court,

hief Justice
No. 11-7988.

#### Haynes *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
-1- 


     


    
 


 

 


    -2- 


     


    
 


 

 


    -3- 


     


    
 


 

 


    -4- 


     


    
 


 

 


    -5- 


     


    
 


 

 


    -6-
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00286

- CR

IN RE JUSTIN S. MATT HEWS

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Justin S. Matthews’s petition for writ of mandamus was filed on September 2, 2016.

In his petition, Matthews complains about the trial court’s failure to rule on a motion,

specifically “Defendant’s First Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Habeas Corpus.”

Since the filing of the petition, the trial court has denied Matthews’s motion.

Accordingly, Matthews’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition dismissed as moot

Opinion delivered and filed September 28 , 2016

Do not publish

[OT06]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4205

To amend title 11, D.C. Code, to clarify that blind individuals are eligible

to serve as jurors in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 13, 1994

Ms. NORTON (for herself, Mr. BLILEY, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. SAXTON, and Mr. STARK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia

A BILL

To amend title 11, D.C. Code, to clarify that blind individuals are eligible to serve as jurors in the Superior Court

of the District of Columbia.

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF BLIND IN4 DIVIDUALS TO SERVE AS JURORS IN DIS5 TRICT OF COLUMBIA.

6 Section 11–1906(b), D.C. Code, is amended by add7 ing at the end the following new paragraph:

8 ‘‘(4) An individual who is blind may not be disquali9 fied from serving as a juror solely on the basis of blind-
2

•HR 4205 IH

1 ness, but may be disqualified from serving as a juror in

2 a particular case if the individual’s blindness makes the

3 individual incapable of rendering satisfactory jury service

4 in that case.’’.

Æ
§ 102-75.470 What action must NPS take after an eligible public agency has submitted an application for conveyance of surplus property for use as a historic monument? NPS must promptly— ( a ) Submit the Secretary of the Interior's determination to the disposal agency; or
( b ) Inform the disposal agency that no such recommendation will be submitted.
Exhibit 21.1
 Subsidiaries of First Physicians Capital Group, Inc.
 Name
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationDel Mar Acquisition, Inc.
    
    NevadaDel Mar GenPar, Inc.
    
    NevadaFirst Physicians Business Solutions, LLC
    
    OklahomaFirst Physicians Community Healthcare Services, Inc.
    
    NevadaFirst Physicians Realty Group, LLC
    
    DelawareFirst Physicians Resources, LLC
    
    NevadaFPS-1, LLC
    
    NevadaOutpatient Surgery of Del Mar, LLC
    
    CaliforniaOutpatient Surgery of Point Loma, LLC
    
    CaliforniaPoint Loma Acquisition, Inc.
    
    NevadaPoint Loma GenPar, Inc.
    
    NevadaRHA Anadarko, LLC
    
    OklahomaRHA Stroud, LLC
    
    OklahomaRHA Tishomingo, LLC
    
    OklahomaRural Hospital Acquisition, L.L.C. (operating under
the trade name of Southern Plains Medical Group)
    
    OklahomaSouthern Plains Medical Center, Inc.
    
    OklahomaSurgical Center Management, Inc.
    
    NevadaThe Chandler Clinic, LLC
    
    OklahomaTri-Isthmus Group (USA), Inc.
    
    DelawareVirtual Source, Inc.
    
    NevadaVsource (USA) Inc.
    
    DelawareVsource (California) Inc.
    
    CaliforniaVsource (CI) Ltd
    
    Cayman IslandsVsource (Asia) Ltd
    
    Hong KongVsource (BVI) Ltd
    
    British Virgin IslandsVsource (Singapore) Pte Ltd
    
    SingaporeVsource (Nevada) Inc.
    
    NevadaSouthern Plains Associates, LLC.
    
    Oklahoma
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-5153 STANLEY BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________ DECIDED: February 8, 2006

_______________________ Before MICHEL, Chief Judge , LOURIE and LINN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Stanley Baker appeals from the final decis ion of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint fo r lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Baker v. United States , No. 05-577C (Ct. Cl. July 8, 2005) (“ Decision ”). We affirm

. According to the Claims Court, Mr. Baker’s complaint and amended complaint contained, at most, four claims: (1) a cl aim of fraud against a number of private and state defendants; (2) an Administrative Proc edure Act claim against the U.S. Postal Service and the Veterans Administration; (3) a motion for review of a federal district court’s decision; and (4) a clai m of prejudice raised against certain state court judges. Decision , slip op. at 3. In dismissing the comp laint, the court recognized that its subject matter jurisdiction is statutorily limited to claims for money damages against the UnitedStates. Id. at 4 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)(2000)). Because none of the claims that the court could discern from Mr. Baker’s co mplaint was for money damages against the United States, it dismissed the case fo r lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. On appeal, Mr. Baker does not dispute the Claims Court’s characterization of the claims contained in his complaint, nor its gr ounds for dismissing those claims as beyond that court’s statutorily-impos ed subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, Mr. Baker appears to assert new claims and additional fact s on appeal, such as a claim for sexual misconduct. We discern no error in the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, it is well-settled that, as an appellate court, we will not normally hear any issue that is raised for the first time on appeal. See, e.g. , James v. FERC , 755 F.2d 154, 155-56 (Fed. Cir. 1 985). Thus, although we are sympathetic to Mr. Baker’s status as a pro se appellant, we must affirm the Claims Court’s decision.

05-5153 -2-