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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1603 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1603

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to correct mistakes which 
  inadvertently included certain ferries operating between Portland, 
 Maine, and Nova Scotia under the excise tax on the transportation of 
 passengers by water as opposed to the actual intent which was to tax 
           voyages the primary purpose of which is gambling.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 1995

 Mr. Longley 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 correct mistakes which 
  inadvertently included certain ferries operating between Portland, 
 Maine, and Nova Scotia under the excise tax on the transportation of 
 passengers by water as opposed to the actual intent which was to tax 
           voyages the primary purpose of which is gambling.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR TRANSPORTATION ON CERTAIN FERRIES.

    (a) General Rule.--Subparagraph (B) of section 4472(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exception for certain 
voyages on passenger vessels) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) Exception for certain voyages.--The term 
                `covered voyage' shall not include--
                            ``(i) a voyage of a passenger vessel of 
                        less than 12 hours between 2 ports in the 
                        United States, and
                            ``(ii) a voyage of less than 12 hours on a 
                        ferry between a port in the United States and a 
                        port outside the United States.
                For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term 
                `ferry' means any vessel if normally no more than 50 
                percent of the passengers on any voyage of such vessel 
                return to the port where such voyage began on the 1st 
                return of such vessel to such port.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to voyages beginning after December 31, 1989; except that--
            (1) no refund of any tax paid before the date of the 
        enactment of this Act shall be made by reason of such 
        amendment, and
            (2) any tax collected from the passenger before the date of 
        the enactment of this Act shall be remitted to the United 
        States.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, May 10, 1995 (63), Para 63.10 Message from the President--National Emergency with Respect to Yugoslavia]
[Page 656]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.63.10  message from the president--national emergency with respect 
          to yugoslavia

  The SPEAKER tempore, Mr. WICKER, laid before the House a message from 
the President, which was read as follows:

To the Congress of the United States:
  Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) 
provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, 
prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President 
publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice 
stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the 
anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent the 
enclosed notice to the Federal Register for publication, stating that 
the emergency declared with respect to the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), as expanded to address the actions 
and policies of the Bosnian Serb forces and the authorities in the 
territory that they control within the Republic of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, is to continue in effect beyond May 30, 1995.
  The circumstances that led to the declaration on May 30, 1992, of a 
national emergency have not been resolved. The Government of the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) continues to support 
groups seizing and attempting to seize territory in the Republics of 
Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina by force and violence. In addition, 
on October 25, 1994, I expanded the scope of the national emergency to 
address the actions and policies of the Bosnian Serb forces and the 
authorities in the territory that they control, including their refusal 
to accept the proposed territorial settlement of the conflict in the 
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The actions and policies of the 
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and the Bosnian 
Serb forces and the authorities in the territory that they control pose 
a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, 
foreign policy interests, and the economy of the United States. For 
these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to maintain in 
force the broad authorities necessary to apply economic pressure to the 
Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) 
and to the Bosnian Serb forces and the authorities in the territory that 
they control to reduce their ability to support the continuing civil 
strife in the former Yugoslavia.
                                                   William J. Clinton.  
  The White House, May 10, 1995.

  By unanimous consent, the message, together with the accompanying 
papers, was referred to the Committee on International Relations and 
ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 104-73).
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 1997 ANNUAL
REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<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>                                           2,188
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      6,271
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           7,483
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             7,705
<LOANS>                                         61,334
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,035
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,957
<DEPOSITS>                                      64,421
<SHORT-TERM>                                       450
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,200
<LONG-TERM>                                      3,670
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,975
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,241
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  79,957
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,962
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,083
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    99
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,144
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,375
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,594
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,550
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (5)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,726
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,235
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,235
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.99
<LOANS-NON>                                         48
<LOANS-PAST>                                       161
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,020
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       26
<RECOVERIES>                                        41
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,035
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                85
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            950


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.0


                           Subsidiaries of Registrant





                                 Subsidiaries of

                            OREGON STEEL MILLS, INC.

             Camrose Pipe Company (a partnership) - Alberta, Canada
              Canadian National Steel Corporation - Alberta, Canada
                       Camrose Pipe Corporation - Delaware
          GlassificationTM International, Ltd. (a partnership) - Oregon
                            New CF&I, Inc. - Delaware
                        OSM Distribution, Inc. - Delaware
                 Oregon Steel Mills Processing, Inc. - Delaware
                    Oregon Steel de Guayana, Inc. - Delaware
                       OSM GlassificationTM, Inc. - Oregon
  CF&I Steel, L.P. (a partnership) - Delaware - dba Rocky Mountain Steel Mills
                 Colorado & Wyoming Railway Company - Delaware
               Oregon Feralloy Partners (a partnership) - Oregon
                       LSI Plate (a partnership) - Oregon
#### § 1150.16 Procedures.

Upon receipt of this information, the matter will be docketed by the prefix initials “D-OP.” Operators may begin operating immediately upon the filing of the necessary information. Although the designated operator will not be required to seek and obtain authority from the Board either to commence or to terminate operations, the designated operator is a common carrier by railroad subject to all other applicable provisions of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV. However, we have exempted designated operators from some aspects of regulation. *See Exemption of Certain Designated Operators from Section 11343,* 361 ICC 379 (1979), as modified by *McGinness* v. *I.C.C.,* 662 F.2d 853 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

[47 FR 8199, Feb. 25, 1982. Redesignated at 47 FR 49581, Nov. 1, 1982, and amended at 64 FR 53268, Oct. 1, 1999; 84 FR 12945, Apr. 3, 2019]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8194

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

CARLTON CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. 

(8:03-cr-00194-DKC-4) 

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 27, 2009 

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Carlton Christopher Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. 

Johnston, Chan Park, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Carlton Christopher Sullivan appeals the district 

court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Sullivan, No. 8:03-cr-00194-DKC-4 (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2008; Aug. 

6, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
#### § 1242.26 Miscellaneous building and structures (account XX-19-28).

Separate common expenses as specific facts indicate or according to distribution of common expenses listed in § 1242.10, Administration-Track (account XX-19-02).
§ 77.11-1 When required. ( a ) All mechanically propelled vessels in ocean, coastwise or Great Lakes service must be fitted with a magnetic compass.
( b ) All mechanically propelled vessels 1,600 gross tons and over in ocean or coastwise service must be fitted with a gyrocompass in addition to the magnetic compass.
( c ) Each vessel must have an illuminated repeater for the gyrocompass required under paragraph (b) of this section, that is at the main steering stand unless the gyrocompass is illuminated and is at the main steering stand.
[CGD 75-074, 42 FR 5963, Jan. 31, 1977]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofSanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2003 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, I, Ben T. Morris, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/   BEN  T. MORRIS |   |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Ben T. Morris                       |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer            |   |
|                                |   |
|                                |   |
| August 12, 2003                     |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and will be retained bySanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6283** 

BILLY EDWARD GRIMES , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. SUPERINTENDENT LAMM , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Di strict of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , Chief District Judge. ( 5:09

- hc

- 02021

- FL )

Submitted : J une 17, 2010 Decided: July 6 , 2010

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un publishe d per curiam opinion
. Billy Edward Grimes, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Billy Edward Gri mes seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonabl e jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on pr ocedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed th e record and conclude that Grimes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mater ials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSE D
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LAGALE BROWN ROSTICK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2023-1599

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-00144-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp. 

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by 

Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the 

rules, it is 

Case: 23-1599 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 09/19/2023
2 ROSTICK V. US

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same 

hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

September 19, 2023

Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 19, 2023

Case: 23-1599 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 09/19/2023
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 25.01
                             CAPITAL RE CORPORATION

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY
                               -----------------

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the Officers and Directors of
Capital Re Corporation, 1325 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10019
whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Michael E. Satz and Alan
S. Roseman, and each of them individually, as his true and lawful attorneys-in-
fact and agents as of March 31, 1997, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him and his name, place and stead in any and all capacities,
to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital Re Corporation and any and all
amendments to such Annual Report, and to file the same, with all exhibits
thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, granting unto said attorney's-in-fact and agents, full
power and authority to perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or their substitutes, may lawfully do or
cause to be done by virtue thereof.


____________________     President, Chief Executive            March 31, 1997
Michael E. Satz          Officer and Chairman of the Board


____________________     Executive Vice President              March 31, 1997
David A. Buzen           and Chief Financial Officer


____________________     Director                              March 31, 1997
Edwin Russell


____________________     Director                              March 31, 1997
Jeffery F. Stuermer


____________________     Director                              March 31, 1997
Dan Skowronski


____________________     Director                              March 31, 1997
Steven H. Newman


____________________     Director                              March 31, 1997
Steven D. Kesler


____________________     Director                              March 31, 1997
Richard L. Huber


____________________     Director                              March 31, 1997
Philip Robinson


____________________     Director                              March 31, 1997
Harrison Conrad


____________________     Director                              March 31, 1997
Barbara Stewart
Internet Archive's Wayback Machine

Loading...

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/energymatters/pdfs/em_volume19.pdf | 20:25:01 Oct 6, 2012

Got an HTTP 302 response at crawl time

Redirecting to...

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_deployment/energy_matters.html

Impatient?

The Wayback Machine is an initiative of the Internet Archive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, building a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form.Other projects include Open Library & archive-it.org.

Your use of the Wayback Machine is subject to the Internet Archive's Terms of Use.
§ 71.50-15 Description of the Alternative Hull Examination (AHE) Program for certain passenger vessels. The Alternative Hull Examination (AHE) Program provides you with an alternative to a drydock examination by allowing your vessel's hull to be examined while it remains afloat. If completed using only divers, this program has four steps: the application process, the preliminary examination, the pre-survey meeting, and the hull examination. If the vessel is already participating in the program or if a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) is used during the program, the preliminary exam step may be omitted. Once you complete these steps, the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), will evaluate the results and accept the examination as a credit hull exam if the vessel is in satisfactory condition. If only divers are used for the underwater survey portion of the examination process, you may receive credit for a period of time such that subsequent AHEs would be conducted at intervals of twice in every five years, with no more than three years between any two AHEs. The OCMI may waive an underwater survey in accordance with § 71.50-29(d) provided that the interval does not exceed five years between any two underwater surveys. If an underwater ROV is used as the predominate method to examine the vessel's underwater hull plating, you may receive credit up to five years. At the end of this period, you may apply for further participation under the AHE Program. Note to § 71.50-15 :
The expected hull coverage when using an ROV must be at least 80 percent.
[USCG-2000-6858, 69 FR 47382, Aug. 5, 2004]
§ 1021.6 Method of claim payment. ( a ) Debtors: Debtors shall be required to settle claims by: ( 1 ) Payment by bank cashier check or other instrument acceptable to designee.
( 2 ) Installment payments by check after the execution of a promissory note containing an agreement for judgment.
( b ) All checks or other instruments will be made out to “Surface Transportation Board,” and after receipt will be forwarded to U.S. Treasury.
98-2061.

#### State v. Franklin.

Montgomery C.P. No. 97CR1139. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for stay of execution.

IT IS ORDERED by the court that appellant’s motion for stay of execution be, and hereby is, granted, pending disposition of this appeal.
#### § 95.15-60 Odorizing units.

Each carbon dioxide extinguishing system installed or altered after July 9, 2013, must have an approved odorizing unit to produce the scent of wintergreen, the detection of which will serve as an indication that carbon dioxide gas is present in a protected area and any other area into which the carbon dioxide may migrate. “Altered” means modified or refurbished beyond the maintenance required by the manufacturer's design, installation, operation and maintenance manual.

[USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33878, June 7, 2012]