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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 49 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 49

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit losses on sales of 
certain prior principal residences to offset gain on a subsequent sale 
                       of a principal residence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Archer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit losses on sales of 
certain prior principal residences to offset gain on a subsequent sale 
                       of a principal residence.

    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 ``Home Sale Tax Fairness Act of 
1993''.

SEC. 2. LOSSES ALLOWED AGAINST GAIN RECOGNIZED ON SALE OF PRINCIPAL 
              RESIDENCE.

    Section 1001 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
determination of amount of and recognition of gain or loss) is amended 
by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g) and by inserting 
after subsection (e) the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Losses Allowed Against Gain Recognized on Sale of Principal 
Residence.--In the case of an individual, the amount of gain which 
would (but for this subsection) be recognized on the sale or exchange 
after December 31, 1993, of a principal residence of such individual 
shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the aggregate of the losses 
(if any) sustained by such individual on the sale or exchange after the 
date of the enactment of this subsection of prior principal residences 
of such individual which were not allowed as a deduction and which were 
not previously taken into account under this subsection. For purposes 
of the preceding sentence, the term `principal residence' has the same 
meaning as when used in section 1034.''

                                 <all>
```
## Dirk Young (USEPA)


## Ian Kennedy (Health Canada)

# Problem: Find a First

- Order Degradation

Representation for Non

- First Order Data

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Concentration (C/C 0 )

Days Data

K=0.01

K= 0.02

K= 0.005 

### C = C 0 

### e - kt

# Right Answer is Dependent on Desired

Protectiveness

# Approaches

 

### FOCUS:

 

### Use several models: SFO, FOMC, Hockey Stick

 

### Find best fit model per chi square method

 

### Derive a DT90 from the best fit model

 

### Use slower DFOP or HS rate as a lower bound

 

### NAFTA:

 

### Determine whether data are significantly non

- first order

 

### If not first order, transform IORE parameters to first order via DT90

 

### Use slower DFOP rate as lower bound

# Questions

 

## What statistics do you use to select the “best” model?

 

## Is a precise estimate of DT90 necessary?

 

## What about extrapolation (data do not reach DT90)?“Perfect ” estimates of DT90 do not assure consistent assessments.

NAFTA emphasis on developing a consistent procedure. 

# The basis for DT90 selection was qualitative. So does

precise estimation offer anything?

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Concentration

Time First Order Model

Data Set #1

Data Set #2

DT 90

# “Extrapolation”

-- not really. How about

Rate Transformation?

Transforming IORE parameters to 1 st order parameter

Acceptance criteria should not be whether data reaches DT90, but rather if

there are sufficient data for confident model parameters.

(As dictated by acceptance criteria of study?).

# NAFTA simplification

 

## Use a single model for DT90 determination

 

## Eliminate statistics for determining best model

 

## Eliminate extrapolation criteria

# Step 1. Prepare Data

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 Concentration



# Time

# Step 2. Fit SFO and IORE

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Concentration



### Time First Order Fit

IORE Fit

Data

SFO when N=1,

# Step 3: Make Determination of FO or not

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

0 2 4 6 Concentration

Time First Order Fit

IORE Fit

Data



## k N

Sc

1 2 3 4

First Order Fit (N=1) 50% Confidence Region

When N=1, First Order Model

# Step 4: Calculate a representative half life from IORE

t rep



### 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0 50 100 150 200 Concentration



### Time

IORE Representative (IORE) Data

# Step 5: Estimate DFOP Parameters (Co, k1, k2, g)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

0 2 4 6 Concentration

Time

DFOP Data

# Step 6: Compare IORE Representation to DFOP Slow Rate:

Choose the Lower of the Two

0 20 40 60 80 100 120



### 0 50 100 150 200 Concentration



### Time Representative (IORE)

DFOP fit

DFOP slow rate



### DataUse SFO

Use IORE t rep Use DFOP

slow half life no

yes no yes 

# Summary

Is SFO fit

acceptable?

Is IORE t rep < DFOP

slow half life?

# Status

 

# NAFTA Project Completed & Signed Nov 2011

 

# Working out technical details regarding tool:

 

# Evaluating an R program created by PMRA

 

# Excel versions less automatic

 

# Implementation plan in works.

 

# Re

- evaulation after 1 year.
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 74 FR 23956, May 22, 2009, 77 FR 30411, May 23, 2012, 82 FR 25538, June 2, 2017, and corrected at 83 FR 4153, Jan. 30, 2018. Nomenclature changes to part 36 also appear at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018, and 84 FR 4360, Feb. 15, 2019.

§ 36.161 Tangible assets—Account 2680. ( a ) Tangible Assets, Account 2680 includes the costs of property acquired under capital leases and the original cost of leasehold improvements.
( b ) The costs of capital leases are apportioned among the operations based on similar plant owned or by analysis.
( c ) The cost of leasehold improvements are apportioned among the operations in direct proportion to the costs of the related primary account.
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 1 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 2 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 3 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 4 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 5 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 6 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 7 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 8 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 9 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 10 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 11 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 12 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 13 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 14 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 15 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 16 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 17 of 18
Case 16-25980 Doc 1-1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 15:22:05 Desc to

 attach correct PDF Page 18 of 18
§ 80.291 Installation of direction finder. ( a ) The direction finder must be located to minimize interference from noise.
( b ) The direction finder antenna system must be erected so that the determination of bearings will not be hindered by the proximity of other antennas, cranes, wire halyards, or large metal objects.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00110-CV 

IN RE CONNIE RAY PALMER RELATOR

---------- 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

TRIAL COURT NO. 43,866-B 

---------- 

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

---------- 

 The court has considered relator’s objection to the requirement that he 

comply with Chapter 14 of the civil practice and remedies code and is of the 

opinion that it should be overruled. 

 Further, the court has considered relator’s application for writ of 

mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. 

 Accordingly, relator’s objection is overruled, and his application for writ of 

mandamus is denied. 

 1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 
2

PER CURIAM 

PANEL: PITTMAN, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J. 

DELIVERED: April 4, 2017
§ 96.7 Authorization required. ( a ) CBSDs and End User Devices must be used and operated consistent with the rules in this part.
( b ) Authorizations for PALs may be granted upon proper application, provided that the applicant is qualified in regard to citizenship, character, financial, technical and other criteria established by the Commission, and that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served. See 47 U.S.C. 301, 308, 309, and 310. The holding of an authorization does not create any rights beyond the terms, conditions, and period specified in the authorization and shall be subject to the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission's rules and policies thereunder.
( c ) Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Licensees are authorized to operate consistent with § 90.1338 of this chapter.
No. 11-5631.

#### Jones *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS41484 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
No. 11-1185.

#### Sibley *v.*United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Financial Officer,

As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, F. Clay
Creasey, Jr., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of Toys R Us, Inc. (the Company) for the annual period ended January 29, 2011 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|March 23, 2011                                    
|                                                  
|/s/ F. Clay Creasey, Jr.                          
|F. Clay Creasey, Jr.                              
|Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)
#### § 11.20 [Reserved]
No. 11-5635.

#### Urbauer *v.*Oklahoma.

Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                         5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Celadon Group, Inc. at June 30, 2000 and
the condensed consolidated statement of operations of Celadon Group, Inc. for
the year then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            360
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  54,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (786)
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               77,362
<PP&E>                                        150,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                (37,477)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                215,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          55,275
<BONDS>                                       115,446
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          257
<OTHER-SE>                                     60,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  215,322
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              351,569
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 342,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  256
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                3,266
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              9,238
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,369)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,328)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,041)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,041)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)




</TABLE>
No. 10-9855.

#### Buford *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 11-8985.

#### Walker *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).

College of Information and Cyberspace National Defense University

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission & Vision             
  -  Faculty & Staff             
  -  Fact Sheet             
  -  Alumni             
  -  Internships             
  -  FAQ 
-  Admissions    -  Eligibility Requirements             
  -  Admissions Calendar             
  -  Application Instructions             
  -  Apply Online             
  -  International Students 
-  Academics    -  Graduate Catalog             
  -  M.S. in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies      -  JPME Master's Degree             
    -  Cyber Workforce Master's Degree (Part Time) 
  -  Leadership Development Programs             
  -  Graduate Certificates             
  -  Academic Partners 
-  Current Students    -  JPME II  Incoming Students             
  -  LDP Incoming Students             
  -  Student Registration             
  -  Bring Your Own Device             
  -  IA Compliance             
  -  Completion Procedures / Order Transcripts             
  -  Student Services and Resources 
-  Events    -  Cyber Beacon             
  -  Cyber PME Colloquium             
  -  Hopper Award             
  -  Lecture Series             
  -  CYBERCOM Symposium 
-  NEWS		 
-  UC2    -  About             
  -  Events             
  -  Work With Us 
-  Center for Cybersecurity    -  About             
  -  Cybersecurity Center POC             
  -  Cybersecurity Supporting Faculty             
  -  CAE-CDE CISO Certificate Program             
  -  Cybersecurity Trending News             
  -  Cyber Labs      -  Ethical Hacking             
    -  Critical Infrastructure - SCADA 
  -  Cyber Exercises      -  Tabletop Exercise             
    -  Cyber Competitions 
  -  Cyber Resources and Awareness             
  -  Stakeholder / Industry Advisory Council 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Directions             
  -  Access to Ft. McNair             
  -  Map of Ft. McNair 

HomeNEWSNews & Announcements

## News & Announcements

# 2016-17 Master's Degree and Certificate Applications Now Accepted

After a summer pause, the iCollege has now opened its acceptance process for Master's and Certificate students.  Please refer to the Students tab of our website for admissions and application instructions.  Refer to the Academics tab for specific information on programs and courses.
A new catalog will be available soon, and the Fall 2016 ("Academic Year 16/17") Course Schedule can be found under Quick Links on the website home page.  

Please contact the iCollege Office of Student Services at iCollegeOSS@ndu.edu or at 202-685-6300 for more information.  

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
#### Abraham SOLOMON, Appellant, v. NEIS-NER BROTHERS, Inc.

No. 10355.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 21, 1951.

Decided March 27, 1951.

Rehearing Denied May 8, 1951.

Herbert L. Winkler, Wilkes-Barre, Pa. (Herman J. Goldberg, Wilkes-Barre, Fa., on the brief), for appellant.

Benjamin R. Jones, Wilkes-Barre, Pa. (Bedford, Waller, Jones & Darling, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This was a suit by a tenant for alleged breach of contract on the part of the landlord to rebuild leased premises for the tenant following their destruction by accidental fire. The Trial Judge granted the motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. M.D.Pa. 1950, 93 F.Supp. 310. The point involved is one of the liability of a Pennsylvania landlord to rebuild Pennsylvania premises for a Pennsylvania lessee. The state law governs; we have no federal question in the case. The District Court wrote a detailed and thoroughly considered opinion which discussed the problem in view of the Pennsylvania authorities. Repetition would add nothing to that discussion. In view of the thoroughly explained state of the local law upon the matter we think the Trial Judge was right and that our only proper course is to affirm the judgment.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
No. 11-8996.

#### Tomlin *v.*Martel, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Order entered July 18, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01401-CR

ELIZABETH CLEMONS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-73435-Y

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On June 26, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief had not been filed. On July 16, 2013, we received appellant’s brief, together with an 

extension motion. Therefore, we conclude findings are no longer necessary and we VACATE 

the June 26, 2013 order.

We GRANT the July 16, 2013 extension motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed as 

of the date of this order.

Appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against her. The record, however, 

does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs assessed in this case.
Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization 

of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court 

appointed attorney fees. In accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 103.001, 

the cost bill shall be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to 

receive payment for the cost. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a 

document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court 

appointed attorney fee.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
No. 11-898.

#### Daman et al. *v.*Brooks.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Los Angeles County Police Chiefs’ Association et al. for leave *1031to file a brief as *amici curiae*granted. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4992 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4992

   To accept redesignation by the Yakama Tribal Council of the name 
   Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation to the 
   ``Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation'' to 
           conform to wording of the Treaty with the Yakamas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 18, 1994

  Mr. Inslee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To accept redesignation by the Yakama Tribal Council of the name 
   Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation to the 
   ``Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation'' to 
           conform to wording of the Treaty with the Yakamas.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF YAKIMA INDIAN NATION TO YAKAMA INDIAN 
              NATION.

    (a) Redesignation.--The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima 
Indian Nation shall be known and designated as the ``Confederated 
Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Confederated Tribes 
and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation referred to in subsection (a) 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Confederated Tribes and 
Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation''.
                                 <all>
```