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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4738

To reduce the Official Mail Allowance of Members of the House and to

prohibit certain other mailing practices, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 13, 1994

Mr. BOEHNER (for himself, Mr. BLUTE, Mr. GOSS, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. GREENWOOD, and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the

following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Post Office

and Civil Service and House Administration

A BILL

To reduce the Official Mail Allowance of Members of the

House and to prohibit certain other mailing practices,

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN OFFICIAL MAIL ALLOWANCE.

4 Section 311(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Legislative Branch Ap5 propriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e(e)(2)(B)(i)) is

6 amended by striking ‘‘3 times’’ and inserting ‘‘1.5 times’’.
2

HR 4738 IH

1 SEC. 2. BAN ON TRANSFER FROM OFFICIAL EXPENSES AL2 LOWANCE AND CLERK HIRE ALLOWANCE TO

3 OFFICIAL MAIL ALLOWANCE.

4 Section 311(e) of the Legislative Branch Appropria5 tions Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e(e)) is amended by striking

6 paragraph (3).

7 SEC. 3. BAN ON UNSOLICITED MAIL AS FRANKED MAIL

8 WITHIN 60 DAYS BEFORE A MEMBER’S PRI9 MARY AND GENERAL ELECTION.

10 Section 3210(a)(6) of title 39, United States Code,

11 is amended—

12 (1) by striking ‘‘mass mailing’’ and inserting

13 ‘‘unsolicited mailing’’ each place it occurs in sub14 paragraphs (A) through (D); and

15 (2) by adding at the end the following:

16 ‘‘(G) As used in this paragraph, the term

17 ‘unsolicited mailing’ means all mail other than

18 mail that is—

19 ‘‘(i) in direct response to a commu20 nication from a person to whom the matter

21 is mailed;

22 ‘‘(ii) from a Member of Congress to

23 other Members of Congress;

24 ‘‘(iii) of a news release to the commu25 nications media; or
3

HR 4738 IH

1 ‘‘(iv) in furtherance of the administra2 tive duties of the Member of Congress.’’.

3 SEC. 4. DISCLOSURE OF MEMBER’S FIRST CLASS MAILINGS

4 TO THE PUBLIC.

5 Section 311(a)(3) of the Legislative Branch Appro6 priations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e(a)(3)) is amended by

7 adding before the period at the end ‘‘, including (by sepa8 rate category) the costs relating to franked, first class

9 mass mailings’’.

10 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

11 The amendments made by this section shall apply

12 with respect to sessions of Congress beginning after the

13 date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
No. 10-10599.

#### McKay, aka McKay *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

p0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

140168(26) 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140168 

 COA: 292380 

Wayne CC: 02-008665-FC 

ANTONIO DUANE WARE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 28, 2010 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
# Mr. Steve Beland

### Technical Writer / Editor

### 

### 

Steve Beland is a technical writer/editor at the National Defense University (NDU) in the College of Information and Cyberspace (CIC) on Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. In this role, he conducts research and writes and edits various reports, correspondences and other documentation for the Department of Defense’s University Consortium for Cybersecurity Coordination Center. Previously, he was an editor and reporter for news organizations and corporate communications offices in California, Nevada and South Korea. He is a Marine Corps veteran who holds a bachelor’s degree in journalism.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-71018, 33-74728, 33-95178, 333-09913,333-27951, 333-62125, 333-81401, 333-94837, 333-47140, 333-56316, 333-61786, 333-83064, 333-98031, 333-103214, 333-106646, 333-108266, and 333-111915) and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-106515) of Mercury Interactive Corporation ofour report dated January 19, 2004, except for Note 17, which is as of February 8, 2004 relating to the financial statements, which appear in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

March 5, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          24,892
<SECURITIES>                                    15,406
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                       842
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,604
<PP&E>                                          11,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,174
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,136
<BONDS>                                          1,495
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,200
<SALES>                                         49,717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,717
<CGS>                                           13,332
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,783
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,522)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,124
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,772
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,697)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,697)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-W0789Collaborative Reform Initiative: Six-Month Assessment Report on the Spokane Police DepartmentIn December 2014, following an 11-month assessment, CNA published A Review of Use of Force Policies, Processes, and Practices in the Spokane Police Department. Although the release of that report marked the completion of the assessment phase, the COPS Office, CNA, and the SPD have continued their collaboration to ensure the implementation of the 42 recommended reforms. Tracking the implementation progress of those reforms began in January 2015 and will continue through summer 2016 - a period of about 18 months. This six-month assessment report report is the first of two progress reports that CNA will publish on the SPD's progress. The purpose of this six-month assessment report is to inform all stakeholders (i.e., the SPD, the DOJ, and the Spokane community) of the SPD's progress to date.By Denise Rodriguez, Blake McClellandCategories: Police OperationsLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-w0789Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Dec 2015Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 00:54 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Celadon Group, Inc.
Registration Statement 333-14641 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Employee Stock
Purchase Plan dated October 23, 1996, Registration Statement 333-42209 on
Form S-8 pertaining to the Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan dated
December 12, 1997, and Registration Statements 333-42207 and 333-31164 on
Form S-8 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan dated December 12, 1997 and
February 25, 2000, respectively, of our report dated August 24, 2000, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Celadon
Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
June 30, 2000.

                                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
September 28, 2000

                                       158
No. 11-8948.

#### Crim *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 11-5806.

#### White *v.*Dickhaut, Superintendent, Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 159 (Thursday, August 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 47497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6975]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; American Health Information Community Confidentiality and 
Security Workgroup Meeting

ACTION: Meeting cancellation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the cancellation of the eighth meeting 
of the American Health Information Community Consumer Empowerment 
Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 
L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.).
    Canceled Date/Time: August 14, 2006, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20201), Conference Room 4090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the 
Consumer Empowerment Workgroup, please visit the following Web site: 
http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/ce_main.html.

    Dated: August 7, 2006.
Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology.
[FR Doc. 06-6975 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
#### § 95.2103 Definitions, LPRS.

*Automated maritime telecommunications system (AMTS).* An automatic maritime communications system administered under part 80 of this chapter.

*Individuals with disabilities.* Individuals with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individuals. *See* section 3(2)(A) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A)).

*Low Power Radio Service (LPRS).* A short-distance voice and data communication service for providing auditory assistance to persons with disabilities (and others), health care related communications, law enforcement tracking, and for certain other purposes.
808 GOODLATTE, Virginia
CHAIRMAN

consin JERROLD NADLER, New York
ZOE LOFGREN,

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

Congress of the Wnited States

House of Representatives
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY DAN OPA LE. Rigo

ieN
C. "HANK" JOHNSON, JR., Georgi
Rt Puerto Rico

CHU,
DEUTCH, Florida

2138 Raysurn House OFFice BUILDING
WasnineTon, DC 20515-6216
(202) 225-3951

httpz/iwww.house.gov/judiciary

August 29, 2016

The Honorable Karen Haas

Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Capitol, Room H154

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madam Clerk,

Pursuant to section 3(c) of House Resolution 5 (114th Congress), I hereby designate the
attached Memorial from the State of North Dakota, received by the House of Representatives in
the year 1978, as purporting to be an application of the State legislature calling for a convention
for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States pursuant to Article V, and
request that you make it publicly available.

Bob Goodlatte
Chairman


TIoall lo whom these presents shall come,

I, __BEN MEIER _ , Secretary of State
of the State of North Dakota, do hereby certify that the attached is a true |
and correct copy of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4018 as passed |
by the 44th Legislative Assembly of the State of North Dakota and |
filed on March 11, 1975.

In Cestimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed

the Great: Seal of the State at the Capitol in the City of Bismarck,
this, Twelfth day of June A. D., 19.78

KBnd Leeiey

CSecrerary oF State

Deputy



1708 SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4018
(Melland)

BALANCED FEDERAL BUDGET AMENDMENT

A concurrent resolution of the North Dakota Legislature calling
for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution proposing to the
several states the requirement of a balanced U.S. cash bud-
get for each session of Congress except in time of war or
national emergency.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF NORTH
DAKOTA, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONCURRING THEREIN:

That we respectfully propose an amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States and call upon the people of
the several states for a convention for such purpose as pro-
vided by Article V of the Constitution, the proposed Article
providing as follows:

ARTICLE

SECTION 1. The president shall submit, at the begin-
ning of each new Congress, an annual budget for the ensuing
fiscal year setting forth in detail the total proposed ex-

a penditures and the total estimated revenue of the Federal
Government from sources other than borrowing. The president
may set new revenue estimates from time to time. Expenditures
for each two-year period shall not exceed the estimated revenue
except in time of war or a national emergency declared by the
Congress. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to
the refinancing of the national debt; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution
be forwarded by the Secretary of State to the legislatures of
the several states,

Filed March 11, 1975
Order filed September 23, 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00479

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF K.J.R. A/K/A K.R. AND K.J.R., CHILDREN

O n Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. 2019

- 02125J



### ORDER
On September 21, 2020, appellant filed a brief, which was rejected because it did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(j)(4). See Tex. R.
A pp. P. 9.4(j)(4). On the same day
, we requested that appellant re

- file t he brief within one business day. Appellant has not re

- filed the brief; therefore, no brief is on file with this court. We order appel lant’s appointed counsel, Angela Elisabeth Ellis, to re

- file appellant’s brief no later than September 25, 2020. If the br ief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.

PER CURIAMPanel Consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Zimmerer.
§ 90.701 Scope. ( a ) Frequencies in the 220-222 MHz band are available for land mobile and fixed use for both Government and non-Government operations. This subpart supplements part 1, subpart F of this chapter which establishes the requirements and conditions under which commercial and private radio stations may be licensed in the Wireless Telecommunications Services. The provisions of this subpart contain additional pertinent information for current and prospective licensees specific to the 220-222 MHz band.
( b ) ( 1 ) Licensees granted initial authorizations for operations in the 220-222 MHz band from among applications filed on or before May 24, 1991 are referred to in this subpart as “Phase I” licensees;
( 2 ) Applicants that filed initial applications for operations in the 220-222 MHz band on or before May 24, 1991 are referred to in this subpart as “Phase I” applicants; and
( 3 ) All assignments, operations, stations, and systems of licensees granted authorizations from among applications filed for operations in the 220-222 MHz band on or before May 24, 1991 are referred to in this subpart as “Phase I” assignments, operations, stations, and systems, respectively.
( c ) ( 1 ) Licensees granted initial authorizations for operations in the 220-222 MHz band from among applications filed after May 24, 1991 are referred to in this subpart as “Phase II” licensees;
( 2 ) Applicants that filed initial applications for operations in the 220-222 MHz band after May 24, 1991 are referred to in this subpart as “Phase II” applicants; and
( 3 ) All assignments, operations, stations, and systems of licensees granted authorizations from among applications filed for operations in the 220-222 MHz band after May 24, 1991 are referred to in this subpart as “Phase II” assignments, operations, stations, and systems, respectively.
( d ) The rules in this subpart apply to both Phase I and Phase II licensees, applicants, assignments, operations, stations, and systems, unless otherwise specified.
[62 FR 15993, Apr. 3, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 68971, Dec. 14, 1998]
On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed May 14, 1994, reconsideration allowed; order filed April 28, 1993,

dismissing appeal vacated; motion to file late notice of appeal within 30 days granted May 4, 1994

#### EDWARD E. ALLEN, *Appellant, v.*Frank A. HALL, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Director of the Oregon State Department of Corrections; Manfred (Fred) Maass, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary, *Respondents.*

(92C-11667; CA A79000)

874 P2d 105

Edward E. Allen, *pro se,*for petition.

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz Judge, and Buttler, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM

*748PER CURIAM

Appellant is an inmate in the Oregon State Penitentiary. He filed this civil action *pro se,*and the trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The judgment was entered on January 24,1993.

Appellant prepared a notice of appeal from that judgment and delivered it to the designated person at the OSP on February 17, 1993, within the time provided by ORS 19.026,1 for filing with the Court of Appeals. For reasons unknown, it was not delivered to the State Court Administrator as required by ORS 19.033(2).2 When appellant learned that, he filed a new notice of appeal more than 30 days from the date of the judgment, along with a motion for leave to file a late appeal. We denied that motion and dismissed the appeal.

Appellant then filed this petition for review, which we treat as a petition for reconsideration under *former*ORAP 9.15(6).

For the reasons stated in *Hickey v. OSP,*127 Or App 727, 874 P2d 102 (1994), we vacate the order dismissing the appeal and grant appellant’s motion to file the late notice of appeal.

Reconsideration allowed; order dismissing appeal vacated; motion to file late notice of appeal within 30 days granted.

1

 ORS 19.026(1) provides:

> “Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the notice of appeal shall be served and filed within 30 days after the judgment appealed from is entered in the register.”

2

 ORS 19.033(2) provides:

> “(2) The following requirements of ORS 19.023, 19.026 and 19.029 are jurisdictional and may not be waived or extended:

> “(a) Service of the notice of appeal on all parties identified in the notice of appeal as adverse parties or, if the notice of appeal does not identify adverse parties, on all parties who have appeared in the action, suit or proceeding, as provided in ORS 19.023(2)(a), within the time limits prescribed by ORS 19.026.

> “(b) Filing of the original of the notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals as provided in ORS 19.023(3), within the time limits prescribed by ORS 19.026.”