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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 202

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to carry out a demonstration

project to establish a highway corridor from Chihuahua, Mexico, through

El Paso, Texas, to Denver, Colorado.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. RICHARDSON) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to carry out a

demonstration project to establish a highway corridor

from Chihuahua, Mexico, through El Paso, Texas, to

Denver, Colorado.

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

3 SECTION 1. CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR.

4 (a) PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary of

5 Transportation shall carry out a project to establish a

6 highway corridor to be known as the ‘‘Camino Real Cor7 ridor’’ from Chihuahua, Mexico, through El Paso, Texas,

8 to Denver, Colorado, for the purpose of demonstrating
2

•HR 202 IH

1 methods of improving cross-border passages of people,

2 goods, and capital.

3 (b) LOCATION OF HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS.—The

4 Secretary shall carry out the project pursuant to sub5 section (a) by making improvements to Interstate Route

6 10 and border arterials in El Paso County, Texas, and

7 by making improvements to Interstate Route 25 in the

8 States of New Mexico and Colorado. Such improvements

9 shall include implementation of intelligent vehicle highway

10 systems.

11 (c) CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR COMMISSION.—

12 (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—As part of the project to

13 be carried out under subsection (a), the Secretary

14 shall establish a commission to be known as the

15 ‘‘Camino Real Corridor Commission’’.

16 (2) DUTIES.—It shall be the duty of the Com17 mission to advise the Secretary on methods to en18 sure the efficient use of the Camino Real Corridor.

19 (3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Commission shall be

20 composed of representatives appointed by the Sec21 retary from organizations representing interests

22 along the Camino Real Corridor.

23 (4) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the

24 date of the first meeting of the Commission, the

25 Commission shall submit to the Secretary and Con-
3

•HR 202 IH

1 gress a report containing recommendations concern2 ing possible expansion of the Camino Real Corridor

3 to the East and West and to Canada.

4 (d) FUNDING.—There shall be available out of the

5 Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Ac6 count) to carry out this section $225,000,000 for fiscal

7 year 1995.

8 (e) APPLICABILITY OF TITLE 23.—Funds authorized

9 by subsection (d) shall be available for obligation in the

10 same manner as if such funds were apportioned under

11 chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that the

12 Federal share of the cost of the project under this section

13 shall be 80 percent and such funds shall remain available

14 until expended. Funds authorized by subsection (d) shall

15 not be subject to any obligation limitation.

Æ
Editorial Note on Part 173
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 70 FR 56098, Sept. 23, 2005.

§ 173.216 Asbestos, blue, brown or white. ( a ) Asbestos, blue, brown or white, includes each of the following hydrated mineral silicates: chrysolite, crocidolite, amosite, anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, and every product containing any of these materials.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) Packagings for asbestos must conform to the general packaging requirements of subpart B of this part but need not conform to the requirements of part 178 of this subchapter. Asbestos must be offered for transportation and transported in— ( 1 ) Rigid, leaktight packagings, such as metal, plastic or fiber drums, portable tanks, hopper-type rail cars, or hopper-type motor vehicles;
( 2 ) Bags or other non-rigid packagings in closed freight containers, motor vehicles, or rail cars that are loaded by and for the exclusive use of the consignor and unloaded by the consignee;
( 3 ) Bags or other non-rigid packagings which are dust and sift proof must be placed in rigid outer packagings or closed freight containers.
[Amdt. 173-224, 55 FR 52643, Dec. 21, 1990, as amended at 66 FR 45379, Aug. 28, 2001; 68 FR 45034, July 31, 2003; 71 FR 78632, Dec. 29, 2006]
**GAO-10-681R**                      Published: Apr 26, 2010. Publicly Released: Apr 26, 2010.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

This letter formally transmits the briefing in response to section 2846 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The act required the Comptroller General to report on the Department of Defense's renewable energy initiatives, including projects involving the installation of solar panels.

## Full Report

Full Report (89 pages)

Accessible Text 

## Office of Public Affairs

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Energy

Alternative energy sourcesDefense procurementEnergy planningEnergy policyRenewable energy sourcesReporting requirementsSolar energyStrategic planningEnergy costsCost analysisMilitary facilitiesThermal energyWind energyProgram evaluation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRIAN COURTNEY,

Plaintiff,

 Case No. 15-12041

V. HON. AVERN COHN

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER OF TRANSFER TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

I.

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that

defendants, the Michigan Department of Corrections, its director, and several its

employees and/or contractors stationed at the facility in which he is incarcerated, have

violated his constitutional rights regarding the food service. For the reasons that follow,

the case will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of

Michigan because venue is not proper in this district.

II.

The proper venue for civil actions is in the judicial district where: (1) any

defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a substantial part of the

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property

in question is situated; or (3) any defendant may be found if there is no other district in

which the plaintiff may bring the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Public officials "reside" in

the county where they serve. See O'Neill v. Battisti, 472 F. 2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972).

2:15-cv-12041-AC-EAS Doc # 2 Filed 06/09/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 39
Here, plaintiff is incarcerated at the Kinross Correctional Facility in Kincheloe,

Michigan. This facility is located in Chippewa County. Chippewa County is within the

Western District of Michigan. The named defendants reside in Chippewa and Ingham

Counties, both of which are in the Western District of Michigan. Thus, the proper venue

is the federal district court in the Western District of Michigan.

"For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district

court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where the action might

have been brought." See Weatherford v. Gluch, 708 F. Supp. 818, 819 (E.D. Mich.

1988) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)). The Court may transfer venue of a lawsuit on its

own for the convenience of parties or witnesses. See Sadighi v. Daghighfekr, 36 F.

Supp. 2d 267, 278 (D.S.C. 1999).

Here, both for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as in the

interests of justice, require that this case be transferred to the Western District of

Michigan.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court shall TRANSFER this case to the Western

District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

SO ORDERED.

 S/Avern Cohn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 9, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of

record on this date, June 9, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Sakne Chami

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2

2:15-cv-12041-AC-EAS Doc # 2 Filed 06/09/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 40
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending November 30, 2013

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136124-5 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136124 

 COA: 281229 

KEVIN ROBERT MACKIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

Wayne CC: 05-009694-01;

 06-001526-01 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136125 

 COA: 281230 

JASON THOMAS WOZNIAK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

Wayne CC: 05-009694-02;

06-001526-02 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 5, 2008 

orders of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0828 

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

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

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1826

To repeal the authorization of transitional appropriations for the United

States Postal Service, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 13, 1995

Mr. MCHUGH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To repeal the authorization of transitional appropriations

for the United States Postal Service, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Section 2004 of title 39,

5 United States Code, is repealed.

6 (2)(A) The table of sections for chapter 20 of such

7 title is amended by repealing the item relating to section

8 2004.
2

•HR 1826 IH

1 (B) Section 2003(e)(2) of such title is amended by

2 striking ‘‘sections 2401 and 2004’’ each place it appears

3 and inserting ‘‘section 2401’’.

4 (b) CLARIFICATION THAT LIABILITIES FORMERLY

5 PAID PURSUANT TO SECTION 2004 REMAIN LIABILITIES

6 PAYABLE BY THE POSTAL SERVICE.—Section 2003 of

7 title 39, United States Code, is amended by adding at the

8 end the following:

9 ‘‘(h) Liabilities of the former Post Office Department

10 to the Employees’ Compensation Fund (appropriations for

11 which were authorized by former section 2004, as in effect

12 before the effective date of this subsection) shall be liabil13 ities of the Postal Service payable out of the Fund.’’.

14 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

15 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall

16 take effect on the date of enactment of this Act or October

17 1, 1995, whichever is later.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-30343

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANGELA M. TAYLOR, also known as

Angela M. Daigle,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-20064-1

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

December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Angela M. Taylor appeals the sentence imposed following her

guilty plea to theft or receipt of stolen mail matter. 

She contends that the district court abused its discretion

in departing upward pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, which provides

for a departure when the defendant’s criminal history category

significantly underrepresents her history or the likelihood that

she may commit further crimes. We find no clear error in the

district court’s finding that Taylor’s criminal history category
No. 00-30343

-2-

underrepresented the seriousness of her history. See United

States v. Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1310 (5th Cir. 1993). We also

perceive no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to depart

on that basis. See id.

Taylor argues that, in any event, the extent of the district

court’s departure was unreasonable. We conclude that the court

did not abuse its discretion in this regard. See United States

v. Hawkins, 87 F.3d 722, 728 (5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.
§ 178.812 Top lift test. ( a ) *General.* The top lift test must be conducted for the qualification of all IBC design types designed to be lifted from the top or, for flexible IBCs, from the side.
( b ) *Special preparation for the top lift test.* ( 1 ) Metal, rigid plastic, and composite IBC design types must be loaded to twice the maximum permissible gross mass with the load being evenly distributed.
( 2 ) Flexible IBC design types must be filled to six times the maximum net mass, the load being evenly distributed.
( c ) *Test method.* ( 1 ) A metal or flexible IBC must be lifted in the manner for which it is designed until clear of the floor and maintained in that position for a period of five minutes.
( 2 ) Rigid plastic and composite IBC design types must be: ( i ) Lifted by each pair of diagonally opposite lifting devices, so that the hoisting forces are applied vertically, for a period of five minutes; and
( ii ) Lifted by each pair of diagonally opposite lifting devices, so that the hoisting forces are applied towards the center at 45° to the vertical, for a period of five minutes.
( 3 ) If not tested as indicated in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, a flexible IBC design type must be tested as follows: ( i ) Fill the flexible IBC to 95% full with a material representative of the product to be shipped.
( ii ) Suspend the flexible IBC by its lifting devices.
( iii ) Apply a constant downward force through a specially designed platen. The platen will be a minimum of 60% and a maximum of 80% of the cross sectional surface area of the flexible IBC.
( iv ) The combination of the mass of the filled flexible IBC and the force applied through the platen must be a minimum of six times the maximum net mass of the flexible IBC. The test must be conducted for a period of five minutes.
( v ) Other equally effective methods of top lift testing and preparation may be used with approval of the Associate Administrator.
( d ) *Criteria for passing the test.* For all IBC design types designed to be lifted from the top, there may be no permanent deformation which renders the IBC, including the base pallets when applicable, unsafe for transportation, and no loss of contents.
[Amdt. 178-103, 59 FR 38074, July 26, 1994, as amended at 66 FR 33452, June 21, 2001; 66 FR 45386, Aug. 28, 2001; 68 FR 45042, July 31, 2003]
APPENDIX A – 2013 AND 2015 SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BOUNDARY QUESTIONNAIRE

School Attendance Boundary Survey

Does your district have school attendance boundary information that 

you are willing to share? Yes/No

If yes, please submit through the School Boundary Digitizer or email 

us the shape files of attendance boundaries for each of the schools in

your district that are listed below.

Alternatively, please submit or send us the electronic or paper maps

of attendance boundaries for each of the schools in your district that 

are listed below.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such 

collection displays a valid OMB control number. The Valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1850-xxxx. The time 

required to complete this information collection will considerably but is estimated to average 1 hour per district, including time to 

review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and review and complete the information collection. If you 

have any comments or concerns about the contents of the questionnaire, the accuracy of the time estimate, or suggestions for 

improving this data collection, please write to: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Attention: School 

Attendance Boundary Survey (SABS), 1990 K Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20006-1103.
School Boundary Digitizer
School Boundary Digitizer
School Boundary Digitizer
§ 178.33-8 Tests. ( a ) One out of each lot of 25,000 containers or less, successively produced per day shall be pressure tested to destruction and must not burst below 240 psig gauge pressure. The container tested shall be complete with end assembled.
( b ) Each such 25,000 containers or less, successively produced per day, shall constitute a lot and if the test container shall fail, the lot shall be rejected or ten additional containers may be selected at random and subjected to the test under which failure occurred. These containers shall be complete with ends assembled. Should any of the ten containers thus tested fail, the entire lot must be rejected. All containers constituting a lot shall be of like material, size, design construction, finish, and quality.
[Order 71, 31 FR 9074, July 1, 1966. Redesignated at 32 FR 5606, Apr. 5, 1967, as amended by 66 FR 45387, Aug. 28, 2001]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, July 27, 1995 (103), Para 103.17 Recorded Vote]
[Page 1209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.103.17  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mr. FRANK:

       Page 20, line 25, insert after the figure 
     ``$10,182,359,000,'' (increase by an additional 
     $331,160,000)''.
       Page 37, strike ``(a)'' in line 23 and all that follows 
     through page 38, line 19.
       Page 71, line 5, strike ``$5,588,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,100,000,000''.
       Page 72, line 1, strike ``$2,618,200,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,533,200,000''.

It was decided in the

Yeas

158

negative

Nays

265
```
Editorial Note on Part 98
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 98 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49232, Sept. 25, 2009.

§ 98.30-11 Gaskets and lining. No person may transfer a hazardous material to or from a portable tank onboard a vessel unless each gasket and the lining of the portable tank are made of a material that is— ( a ) Chemically compatible with the product for which the portable tank is approved; and
( b ) Resistant to deterioration by the product for which the portable tank is approved.
[CGD 84-043, 55 FR 37412, Sept. 11, 1990. Redesignated and amended by USCG-2011-0088, 78 FR 54785, 54787, Sept. 6, 2013]
|   | EXHIBIT 32.2 |   |
|--------|--------------|--------|

|   |
|--------|

|   | CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIALOFFICERREQUIRED BY EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b) |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

| I, David Loflin, Acting Chief Accounting Officer of Diamond I, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the accompanying report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2006, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. I further certify that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company. |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |
|--------|

| Dated: April 17, 2007. | /s/ DAVID LOFLIN |   |
|------------------------|------------------|--------|

|   | David LoflinActing Chief Accounting Officer |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|