alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2330 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a study 

to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing 

Camp Hale as a unit of the National Park System. 

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

•HR 2330 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Camp Hale Study 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY OF THE SUITABILITY 

5 AND FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING CAMP 

6 HALE AS A UNIT OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

7 SYSTEM. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior, act9 ing through the Director of the National Park Service 

10 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’), shall com11 plete a special resource study of Camp Hale to deter12 mine— 

13 (1) the suitability and feasibility of designating 

14 Camp Hale as a separate unit of the National Park 

15 System; and 

16 (2) the methods and means for the protection 

17 and interpretation of Camp Hale by the National 

18 Park Service, other Federal, State, or local govern19 ment entities or private or nonprofit organizations. 

20 (b) STUDY REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall 

21 conduct the study in accordance with section 8(c) of Pub22 lic Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)). 

23 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

24 on which funds are made available to carry out this Act, 

25 the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural 

26 Resources of the House of Representatives and the Com-
3 

•HR 2330 EH

1 mittee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate 

2 a report containing— 

3 (1) the results of the study; and 

4 (2) any recommendations of the Secretary. 

5 SEC. 3. EFFECT OF STUDY. 

6 Nothing in this Act shall affect valid existing rights, 

7 including— 

8 (1) all interstate water compacts in existence on 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act (including full 

10 development of any apportionment made in accord11 ance with the compacts); 

12 (2) water rights decreed at the Camp Hale site 

13 or flowing within, below, or through the Camp Hale 

14 site; 

15 (3) water rights in the State of Colorado; 

16 (4) water rights held by the United States; and 

17 (5) the management and operation of any res18 ervoir, including the storage, management, release, 

19 or transportation of water. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 2, 2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2330 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to carry out 

National Park System. bility of establishing Camp Hale as a unit of the a study to determine the suitability and feasi-
§ 169.717 Fireman's outfit. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76707 , Sept. 18, 2024.
( a ) Each vessel greater than 120 feet but less than 150 feet in length must carry one fireman's outfit consisting of— ( 1 ) One pressure-demand, open-circuit, self-contained breathing apparatus, approved by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and having at a minimum a 30-minute air supply and a full facepiece; but a self-contained compressed-air breathing apparatus previously approved by MSHA and NIOSH under part 160, subpart 160.011, of this chapter may continue in use as required equipment if it was part of the vessel's equipment on November 23, 1992, and as long as it is maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection;
( 2 ) One lifeline with a belt or a suitable harness;
( 3 ) One approved flame safety lamp;
( 4 ) One flashlight listed by an independent testing laboratory as suitable for use in hazardous locations;
( 5 ) One fire ax;
( 6 ) Boots and gloves of rubber or other electrically nonconducting material;
( 7 ) A rigid helmet that provides effective protection against impact; and
( 8 ) Protective clothing.
( b ) Each vessel 150 feet or greater must carry two fireman's outfits. The outfits must be stowed in widely separated accessible locations.
( c ) Lifelines must be of steel or bronze wire rope. Steel wire rope must be either inherently corrosion resistant or made so by galvanizing or thinning. Each end must be fitted with a hook with keeper having a throat opening which can be readily slipped over a 5 ⁄ 8-inch bolt. The total length of the lifeline is dependent upon the size and arrangement of the vessel, and more than one line may be hooked together to achieve the necessary length. No individual length of lifeline may be less than 50 feet in length. The assembled lifeline must have a minimum breaking strength of 1,500 pounds.
( d ) A complete recharge must be carried out for each self-contained breathing apparatus and a complete set of spare batteries and bulb must be carried for each flashlight. The spares must be stowed in the same location as the equipment it is to reactivate.
( e ) Protective clothing must be constructed of material that will protect the skin from the heat of fire and burns from scalding steam. The outer surface must be water resistant.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 896, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by CGD 86-036, 57 FR 48326, Oct. 23, 1992]
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0005454

05-MAY-2015

08:09 AM
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00239

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 16th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 16

- 04048

- 16

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Walker and Meier, JJ. Opin ion by Chief Justice Sudderth 

### J EFFREY 

### P OLK 

### K ILLIAN 

### , Appellant

V



### . A NGELA 

### N ICOLE 

### K ILLIAN 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
After Appellant Jeffrey Polk Killian filed a notice of appeal on July 27, 2018 , w e notified him of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over t h e appeal because the
trial court clerk had informed us that the trial judge had not yet signed an appealable order or a final judgment, making the notice of appeal premature. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a) (setting deadline to file notice of appeal “after the judgment is signed”), 27.1(a) (providing that in a civil c ase, a prematurely filed notice of appeal is effective and deemed filed on the day of, but after, the event that begins the period for perfecting the appeal)

. We gave the parties until August 16, 2018, to furnish this court with a signed copy of an appeala ble order and warned that we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction if no order was signed and furnished to us by that date. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a) (providing for involuntary dismissal for want of jurisdiction) . Because neither party has furnished us with said order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f) (providing for dismissal of appeal). /s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice
Delivered: September 27, 2018
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

NORTHERN INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF NEW YORK, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-13458 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

TARGET CORPORATION et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #38) 

On November 12, 2015, Defendants Target Corporation and Target Stores, 

Inc. (collectively “Target”) filed a motion for summary judgment (the “Motion”). 

(See ECF #38.) The Court held a hearing on the Motion on January 21, 2016. For 

the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Target’s ability to file a second summary 

judgment motion. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: January 21, 2016 

2:14-cv-13458-MFL-SDD Doc # 50 Filed 01/21/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1447
2 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on January 21, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-13458-MFL-SDD Doc # 50 Filed 01/21/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1448
§ 173.051 Public nautical school ships. Each public nautical school ship must comply with— ( a ) Section 171.070(a) of this subchapter as a passenger vessel carrying 400 or less passengers;
( b ) Section 171.070(e) of this subchapter;
( c ) Section 171.072 of this subchapter; and
( d ) Section 171.073 of this subchapter.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51045, Nov. 4, 1983. Redesignated by CGD 83-005, 51 FR 924, Jan. 9, 1986]
#### GEORGE HINSCH, ADMINISTRATOR AD PROSEQUENDUM OF THE ESTATE OF FRED HINSCH, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF, v. ARAKEL AMIRKANIAN AND MOONOG KASHIAN, DEFENDANTS.

Submitted October term, 1928

Decided March 11, 1929.

Before Justices Teenchaed, Kalisch and Lloyd.

Eor the rule, *Heller & Boss.*

*Contra, I. Faerber Goldenhorn.*

Pee Cueiam.

This is defendants’ rule in an automobile accident case in which the action was brought to recover damages for the death of a boy nine years of age, killed by defendants’ automobile. The verdict was for $750. No complaint is made of the amount of the award, but it is contended that the evidence was insufficient to justify a verdict on the question of negligence and that the defendants’ proofs overcame the presumption of. operation arising from the ownership of the car. We think neither reason is sufficient.

The accident happened in front of a moving picture theatre in Union City. ■ The car was being driven by a man named Kashian. The proofs were that the car was proceeding just before the accident at a speed of twenty-two to twenty-five miles an hour in a crowded thoroughfare where the houses were close together; that the brakes of the car were in bad condition and that no warning was given of its approach. Of these facts there was no denial by the defendant and they were sufficient to justify an inference of negligence.

The evidence to rebut the presumption of operation was not of that satisfactory character to constitute the question one for the court rather than for the jury. *Tischner*v. *Steinholtz,*99 *N. J. L.*149. Aside from this there was evidence *275from which the jury could infer that the car was being used by the driver with the sanction of the defendant owner, and it was evidence of negligence to so authorize the use of the car in the crippled condition of its brakes.

The rule is discharged.
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.500 Inert gas systems. When Table 1 refers to this section, a cargo containment system must have a permanent inert gas system that: ( a ) Maintains the vapor space of the containment system in an inert state by filling the vapor space with a gas that is neither reactive with the cargo nor flammable;
( b ) Has a pressure control system that: ( 1 ) Prevents the inert gas system from raising the cargo tank pressure to more than the relief valve setting; and
( 2 ) Maintains at least a 3.5 kPa gauge (approx. 0.5 psig) pressure within the containment system at all times, including cargo discharge;
( c ) Has storage for enough inerting gas to replace that normally lost while the tank's atmosphere is maintained in an inert condition (e.g. through tank breathing and relief valve leakage), but in no case an amount less than 5 percent of the tank's capacity when measured with the gas at −18 °C (approx. 0 °F) and a pressure equal to the cargo tank's relief valve setting; and
( d ) Has connections for any supplemental gas supply necessary to maintain the inert gas pressure described in paragraph (b) of this section during cargo discharge.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23.2



INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT



To the Board of Directors
PICK Communications Corp.


We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(No. 333-20573) on Form S-8 of PICK Communication Corp. of our report dated
March 5, 1999, except for portions of Notes 13 and 17, as to which the date is
March 26, 1999, and Notes 6 and 16, as to which the date is April 28, 1999
related to the consolidated balance sheet of PICK Communications Corp. and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' deficiency, and cash flows for the year ended December
31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form
10-K of PICK Communications Corp.


/s/ Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP

GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York



May 6, 1999
§ 171.114 Penetrations and openings in watertight bulkheads in a vessel less than a 100 gross tons. ( a ) Penetrations and openings in watertight bulkheads must— ( 1 ) Be kept as high and as far inboard as practicable; and
( 2 ) Have means to make them watertight.
( b ) Watertight bulkheads must not have sluice valves.
( c ) Each main traverse watertight bulkhead must extend to the bulkhead deck.
[CGD 85-080, 62 FR 51353, Sept. 30, 1997]
§ 169.668 Batteries. ( a ) Each battery must be in a location that allows the gas generated in charging to be easily dissipated by natural or induced ventilation.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a battery must not be located in the same compartment with a gasoline tank or gasoline engine.
( c ) If compliance with paragraph (b) of this section is not practicable, the battery must be effectively screened by a cage or similar structure to minimize the danger of accidental spark through dropping a metal object across the terminals.
( d ) Each battery must be located as high above the bilges as practicable and secured against shifting with motion of the vessel. Each battery and battery connection must be accessible so as to permit removal.
( e ) All connections must be made to battery terminals with permanent type connectors. Spring clips or other temporary type clamps may not be used.
( f ) Each battery must be located in a tray of lead or other suitable material resistant to deteriorating action by the electrolyte.
( g ) Each battery charger intended for connection to a commercial supply voltage must employ a transformer of the isolating type. An ammeter that is readily visible must be included in the battery charger circuit.
( h ) A voltage dropping resistor, provided for charging a battery, must be mounted in a ventilated noncombustible enclosure that prevents hazardous temperatures at adjacent combustible materials.
( i ) The main supply conductor from the battery must have an emergency switch, located as close as practicable to the battery, that opens all ungrounded conductors.
( j ) If a storage battery is not in the same compartment and adjacent to the panel or box that distributes power to the various lighting, motor and appliance branch circuits, the storage battery lead must be fused at the battery.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, April 18, 2007, 9 a.m. to April 19, 2007, 5 p.m., Courtyard by Marriott Rockville, 2500 Research Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 16, 2007, Volume 72, Number 72.                

The date and location of the meeting was changed to May 9-10, 2007, Hilton Washington, DC/Rockville Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: April 23, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-2134  Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 163.002-3 Applicable technical regulations. ( a ) This subpart makes reference to the following Coast Guard regulations in this chapter: ( 1 ) Subpart 58.30 (Fluid Power and Control Systems).
( 2 ) Section 94.33-10 (Description of Fleet Angle).
( 3 ) Part 111 (Electrical System, General Requirements).
( 4 ) Subpart 163.003 (Pilot Ladder).
( b ) [Reserved]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JOHN D. WARD, Defendant - Appellant. No. 17-3182 (D.C. Nos. 5:16-C V-04109-DDC and 5:01-CR-40050-DDC-1) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , BACHARACH , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ This matter is before us on the United States’ Motion for Summary Affirmance

. The United States moves for summ ary affirmance of the district court’s judgment in light of this court’s decision in United States v. Greer , 2018 WL 721675 (1 0th Cir. Feb. 6, 2018). In response, Appellant Jo hn D. Ward acknowledged that Greer answers the question raised in this appeal and the court could summarily affirm. However, he suggested that summary affirmance was prem ature prior to issuance of the mandate in
Greer . On March 7, 2018, the court abated this appeal and its consid eration of the United States’ motion for summary affirmance pe nding issuance of the mandate in Greer

.

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, exce pt under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral es toppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 11, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 The mandate in Greer issued on April 2, 2018. Accord ingly, the abatement of this appeal is lifted and the United States’ Motion for Summary Affirmance is granted. In light of this court’s decision in United States v. Greer , 2018 WL 721675 (1 0th Cir. Feb. 6, 2018), the judgment of the di strict court is affirmed.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam
# C_2011211EN.01003501.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/35

---

Action brought on 25 May 2011 — ZZ v ECB

(Case F-60/11)

2011/C 211/71

Language of the case: english

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the ECB's decision confirming its previous decision to suspend the applicant with effect from 5 August 2010 and the claim for damages.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the ECB dated 23 November 2010 confirming the decision of 4 August 2010 to suspend the Appellant and, if necessary, of the decision of 15 March 2011 rejecting the special appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the ECB dated 23 November 2010 confirming the decision of 4 August 2010 to suspend the Appellant and, if necessary, of the decision of 15 March 2011 rejecting the special appeal;

| — | as a consequence, order the full reinstatement of the Appellant in his function with the appropriate publicity in order to restore his good name; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, order the full reinstatement of the Appellant in his function with the appropriate publicity in order to restore his good name;

| — | in any case, order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the Appellant evaluated ex aequo et bono at 20 000,00 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any case, order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the Appellant evaluated ex aequo et bono at 20 000,00 EUR;

| — | order the ECB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the costs.

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Arnold & Itkin, L.L.P., Beck Redden, L.L.P., Albritton Law

Firm, Kurt Arnold, Cory Itkin, Jason Itkin, Russell Post, Fields

Alexander, Jas Brar and Eric Albritton

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00990

- CV

Trial court case number: 2015

- 28543

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

On November 24, 2015, relators in the above

- captioned original proceeding filed a

petition for writ of mandamus challe nging the trial court’s September 17, 2015 and November 9,

2015 orders denying relators’ pleas to the jurisdiction and pleas in abatement.

The Court requests that the real parties in interest respond to the petition for writ of

mandamus. It is ordered th at the response of any interested party shall be due on or before

January 4, 2016.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 25, 2015