alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

71) ll-E-31 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:05 AM Sheet 71 of 264 

i 
'+ 

OCT 24 '95, 0^:2431 ©JSlfiMeWT&rJOUET GENERAL 

P.2 

Post-it" Pax Note 7671 

From: 

Date of Contact: 

Contact: 

Company: 

ToV)ti»»(Tft aoftsro j 

CoJDep.. v^f ^ 

PhOM4 

¥5T <\ve - s^-iov 

CONTACT 

Wanita Dunston, US Envir^ 

Madeleine Strum, US Environmental Protection 

September 5,1995 

PaulMargherio, CHMM 

Crane Kemlite (fcrmeriy BP Chemicals, Ihc' 

Pooos 

Fax* 

Xt-tOl 

Vs-SlT-lfeSt 

Telephone Number: (815) 467*8656 

CONTACT SUMMARY 

Notes prepared by Wanita Dunston 

• Additional informaiion (requested from the August 8,1995 Contact Report) was obtained. 

• Stack tests were conducted on three different occasions: May 30,1991; Januaty 2 5,1991, 

sad on November 15,1990. 

• From the May 1991 testing, it was determined that the inlet concentration was ofthe 

range from 528-538 ppm. QUESTION: IS THS OF STYRENE ONLY? No, this is 

styrene and n-butyl acrylate. Tho outlet concentration is 14-19 ppm. The destruction 

efficiency was 96-97%. 

On the November 1990 test, inlet concentratiotF1

 250-365 ppm 

outlet concentration- 11-15 ppm 

destruction efficiencj~94-9$.7% 

• THE CHANGE IN INLET AND OUTLET CONCENTRATIONS BETWEEN IHE. 

TWO TESTS MENTIONED IS NOTICEABLE. Paul noted that on tiie earlier test, there 

may have been just one line running and vented to tbe incinerator. During the May 1991 

test, both lines were running. This shows typical concentrations. SO WHAT IS THE 

CAPTURE EFFICIENCY? We did not do a specific capture efficiency, It appears to be. 

a permanent total enclosure. (Paul went to an incineration seminar. Draft (sir flow) is 

adjustable. It does speed and daw down the fen to tiie incinerator. There are neural 

draft openings and we can adjust the incinerator's openings based upon tiiat. 

• That 4.69 tpy figure, some of it is fugitive emissions; aad some indudes styrene present 

after incineration- Probably, most of that figure is process fiigjtives and not mdasrated. 

Information is accurate:
§ 1.36 Delegations to the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs is delegated authority to: ( a ) Establish procedures for responding to Congressional correspondence; and
( b ) Supervise the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal Government Affairs.
#### § 1102.1 How addressed.

All communications should be addressed to the Chief, Section of Administration, Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001 unless otherwise specifically directed by another Board regulation. All communications should designate the docket number and title, if any. The person communicating shall state his address, and the party he represents.

[74 FR 52905, Oct. 15, 2009]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, June 27, 1995 (87), Para 87.29 Greater Washington Soap Box Derby]
[Page 1048]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.87.29  greater washington soap box derby

  Mr. GILCHREST, by unanimous consent, called up the following 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 38):

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES ON CAPITOL 
                   GROUNDS.

       The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association 
     (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the 
     ``association'') shall be permitted to sponsor a public 
     event, soap box derby races, on the Capitol grounds on July 
     15, 1995, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
     of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate may jointly designate.

     SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

       The event to be carried out under this resolution shall be 
     free of admission charge to the public and arranged not to 
     interfere with the needs of Congress, under conditions to be 
     prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol 
     Police Board; except that the Association shall assume full 
     responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to 
     all activities associated with the event.

     SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

       For the purposes of this resolution, the Association is 
     authorized to erect upon the Capitol grounds, subject to the 
     approval of the Architect of the Capitol, such stage, sound 
     amplification devices, and other related structures and 
     equipment as may be required for the event to be carried out 
     under this resolution.

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

       The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board 
     are authorized to make any such additional arrangements that 
     may be required to carry out the event under this resolution.

  When said concurrent resolution was considered and agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said concurrent resolution was 
agreed to was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
  Ordered, That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate in said 
concurrent resolution.
```
#### Abraham Altman, *Respondent, v.*Myron P. Bush, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide event. Opinion by

Hardin, J.
#### Luciano Poncio v. The State.

*No. 3141.*

*Decided October 19.*

Carrying Arms into Jail, etc.—Evidence.—See the opinion for the substance of evidence *held*insufficient to support a conviction under article 210 of the Penal Code for "conveying a knife into the county jail to aid the escape of a prisoner, said knife being useful,” etc., because insufficient to establish either the unlawful intent or the alleged "useful” character of the knife.

Appeal from the District Court of Live Oak. Tried below before Hon. D. P. Marr.

The opinion discloses the case. The penalty assessed against the appellant was a term of two years in the penitentiary.

*J. C. Cade*and *F. H. Church,*for appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

Appellant has been convicted upon an indictment which charged him with conveying into the county jail “an *105instrument, that is, one certain knife, the same being useful to aid T. Venturo, a prisoner, then and there lawfully detained in said jail on an accusation of felony, in escaping from said jail, and with the intent then and there to facilitate the escape of said T. Venturo, so lawfully detained in said jail." This indictment was based upon article 210 of the Penal Code.

The evidence showed the knife thrown into jail by the defendant was *“a*common pocket knife, large but old, with two blades, a large and a small one." There is no evidence going to show how such a knife was useful or could be used by the prisoner in effecting his escape from said jail, and there is no evidence that the prisoner ever attempted to use it for such a purpose. The knife was simply found by the jailer in the possession of the prisoner Venturo. Venturo, who testified as a witness for the State, says the defendant came to the jail one evening; that he asked him for his knife; that defendant threw it up into the jail to him; that he did not tell defendant what he wanted with the knife, and that defendant, after throwing him the knife, went immediately away without saying anything. Defendant, who testified in the case, denied that the knife was his, and denied having given it to Venturo.

If we accept Venture's statement as true, then in our opinion the evidence is wholly insufficient to support the conviction, both as to the criminal intent of the defendant and the fact that the knife was useful to aid the prisoner to escape.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

*Reversed and*remanded.

Hurt, J., absent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-24-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-25-2000
<CASH>                                          10,246
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                       272
<INVENTORY>                                     24,536
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,020
<PP&E>                                          25,309
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  69,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,961
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           19,456
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            22
<OTHER-SE>                                       (543)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    69,892
<SALES>                                         74,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,316
<CGS>                                           33,673
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,234
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,206)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,206)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,206)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.40)


</TABLE>
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 02-201 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Treaty Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and FRANCE 

Signed at Paris April 23, 1996 

with 

Agreed Minute 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 FRANCE 

 Extradition 

Treaty signed at Paris April 23, 1996; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate July 9, 1997 (Treaty Doc. 105-13, 

 105th Congress, 1st Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 October 14, 1998 (Senate Executive Report No. 105-23, 

 105th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 October 21, 1998; 

Ratified by the President January 20, 1999; 

Ratified by France December 13, 2001; 

Entered into force February 1, 2002. 

With agreed minute. 































4




9


12
13







21
#### § 1119.1 Compliance.

A defendant or respondent directed by the Board to do or desist from doing a particular thing must notify the Board on or before the compliance date specified in the decision of the manner of compliance. Notification should be by verified affidavit showing simultaneous service upon all parties to the proceeding. Where a change in rates or schedules is directed, notification specifying the Surface Transportation Board tariff or schedule numbers must be given in addition to the filing of proper tariffs or schedules.

[47 FR 49570, Nov. 1, 1982]
98-2201.

#### State v. Keith.

Richland App. No. 97CA442. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., dissents.
§ 1108.21 Definitions. As used in this subpart: ( a ) *Arbitrator* means a single person appointed to arbitrate under this subpart.
( b ) *Arbitration panel* means a group of three people appointed to arbitrate under this subpart.
( c ) *Arbitration decision* means the decision of the arbitration panel served on the parties as set forth in § 1108.27(c)(3).
( d ) *Complainant* means a party that seeks to challenge the reasonableness of a rate charged by a rail carrier using the Small Rate Case Arbitration Program, including rail shippers.
( e ) *Final offer rate review* means the Final Offer Rate Review process for determining the reasonableness of railroad rates.
( f ) *Lead arbitrator* means the third arbitrator selected by the two party-appointed arbitrators or, if the two party-appointed arbitrators cannot agree, an individual selected from a list of individuals jointly developed by the parties and using the procedures to select from this list, as set forth in § 1108.26(c)(3).
( g ) *Limit price test* means the methodology for determining market dominance described in *M&G Polymers USA, LLC* v. *CSX Transp., Inc.,* NOR 42123, slip op. at 11-18 (STB served Sept. 27, 2012).
( h ) Participating railroad or participating carrier means a railroad that has voluntarily opted into the Small Rate Case Arbitration Program pursuant to § 1108.23(a).
( i ) *Party-appointed arbitrator* means the arbitrator selected by each party pursuant to the process described in § 1108.26(b).
( j ) *Rate disputes* are disputes involving the reasonableness of a rail carrier's rates.
( k ) *Small Rate Case Arbitration Program* means the program established by the Surface Transportation Board in this subpart.
( l ) STB or Board means the Surface Transportation Board.
( m ) *STB-maintained roster* means the roster of arbitrators maintained by the Board, as required by § 1108.6(b), under the Board's arbitration program established pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11708 and set forth in subpart A of this part.
( n ) *Streamlined market dominance test* means the methodology set forth in 49 CFR 1111.12.
§ 1312.5 Amendments to tariffs. ( a ) *Manner of making changes.* An amendment is a change in, addition to, or cancellation of part of a tariff. Supplements are the tariff publications used to amend bound tariffs, and new or revised pages are the tariff publications normally used to amend looseleaf tariffs, although looseleaf tariffs can also be amended by supplements. Tariffs can also be canceled by new or reissued tariffs (see § 1312.7).
( b ) *Supplements.* Supplements issued to amend a tariff shall be consecutively numbered. Each new supplement shall identify any supplement(s) that it cancels, and any supplement(s) that are still in effect. A tariff amendment published in a supplement may be carried forward to later supplements if it is identified as reissued without change from the supplement in which it was originally published.
( c ) *Looseleaf pages.* Looseleaf pages to an original tariff shall be designated as “Original” (e.g., Original Title Page, Original Page 1, Original Page 2, etc.). Looseleaf pages issued to amend the tariff shall bear consecutive revision numbers and shall cancel the prior version(s) of the same page (e.g., 1st Revised Page 1 Cancels Original Page 1, 2nd Revised Page 1 Cancels 1st Revised Page 1, etc.). Additional original pages may also be issued to amend a tariff, by adding new numbered pages after the last numbered page, or by adding existing numbered pages with alphabetic suffixes (e.g., a page designated as Original Page 2-A could be added between pages 2 and 3, etc.). Each looseleaf tariff shall include a Check Sheet, a Correction Number Check Sheet, or some other method of determining the looseleaf pages issued to amend such tariff.
69–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–136

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1555, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

MAY 12, 1999.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. GOSS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 167]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 167, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 1555, the

‘‘Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,’’ under a

modified open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate

divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The rule

provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be

considered by title and that each title shall be considered as read.

The rule waives points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI

(prohibiting nongermane amendments).

The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the

Congressional Record. The rule provides that each amendment

printed in the Congressional Record may be offered only by the

Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, and each

amendment shall be considered as read.

The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to

postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting time to five minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows

a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
2

The waiver of clause 7 of rule XVI against the amendment in the

nature of a substitute is necessary because of the addition of title

V in the amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was not

in the original bill and broadens the scope of the bill.

Æ
#### § 1546.403 [Reserved]
# C_2012025EN.01007202.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/72

---

Action brought on 22 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission.

(Case F-121/11)

(2012/C 25/140)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions of the Ispra Claims Office refusing to grant authorisation for an official, posted in Jordan, to claim transport and accompaniment expenses incurred to allow his son to carry out psychotherapy in French, the child’s mother tongue, in Beirut (Lebanon).

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the refusals to grant authorisation for the medical services sought by the applicant in favour of his son, his wife and himself, those refusals resulting from three decisions adopted respectively on 22 February, 10 March and 18 April 2011 by the Head of the Ispra Claims Office of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the refusals to grant authorisation for the medical services sought by the applicant in favour of his son, his wife and himself, those refusals resulting from three decisions adopted respectively on 22 February, 10 March and 18 April 2011 by the Head of the Ispra Claims Office of the European Commission;

| — | annul the decision adopted on 12 August 2011 by the Director of Directorate D of DG Human Resources and Security of the European Commission, as the Authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AECE), rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted on 12 August 2011 by the Director of Directorate D of DG Human Resources and Security of the European Commission, as the Authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AECE), rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, March 28, 1995 (51), Para 51.16 Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon Military Lands Withdrawal]
[Pages 507-508]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.51.16  fort carson-pinon canyon military lands withdrawal

  Mr. HEFLEY moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 256) to

[[Page 508]]

withdraw and reserve certain public lands and minerals within the State 
of Colorado for military uses, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. McINNIS, recognized Mr. HEFLEY and Mr. 
RICHARDSON, each for 20 minutes.
  After debate,
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House suspend the rules and pass said bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. McINNIS, announced that two-thirds of the 
Members present had voted in the affirmative.
  So, two-thirds of the Members present having voted in favor thereof, 
the rules were suspended and said bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the rules were suspended and 
said bill was passed was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
  Ordered, That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate in said 
bill.
```
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending December 6, 2008

----

EnforcementSunTrust Bank, Atlanta, Georgia  -- issuance of a consent order of prohibition against Julianne L. Gingrich, a former assistant vice president, foreign currency manager, and institution-affiliated party.					-Announced, December 4, 2008 					

FormsForms  -- initial Board review to extend with revision the Weekly Report of Selected Assets (FR 2644) and to discontinue the Weekly Report of Assets and Liabilities for Large Banks (FR 2416) and�the Weekly Report of Assets and Liabilities for Large U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FR 2069).					-Proposed, December 1, 2008 					

Monetary and Financial PolicySystem Liquidity Facilities  -- extension through April 30, 2009, of the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, and Term Securities Lending Facility.					-Announced, December 2, 2008 					Term Auction Facility  -- TAF auction in the amount of $150 billion in 84-day credit on December 1, 2008.					-Announced, December 1, 2008 					

Regulations And PoliciesRegulation Z  (Truth in Lending)  -- publication for comment of amendments that would revise the disclosure requirements for mortgage loans consistent with recent statutory changes made by the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act  (Docket No. R-1340).					-Approved, December 2, 2008 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: December 11, 2008