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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2373 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2373

  To provide that neither the President, the Vice President, nor any 
 Member of Congress shall be paid during Federal Government shutdowns.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 21, 1995

Mr. Bonilla (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Kim, and Mr. 
Miller of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
 the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to 
   the Committee on House Oversight, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide that neither the President, the Vice President, nor any 
 Member of Congress shall be paid during Federal Government shutdowns.

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

SECTION 1. NO PAY DURING GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS.

    Neither the President, the Vice President, nor any Member of 
Congress may receive basic pay for any period in which--
            (1) there is a lapse in appropriations for any Federal 
        agency or department as a result of a failure to enact a 
        regular appropriations bill or continuing resolution; or
            (2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or 
        meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 
        3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.

SEC. 2. RETROACTIVE PAY PROHIBITED.

    No pay forfeited in accordance with section 1 may be paid 
retroactively.
                                 <all>
```
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BRIAN K. NEWSOME,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3167

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0752-15-0179-I-1.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

DANIEL CRAIG COOLEY, Finnegan, Henderson, 

Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA, argued for 

petitioner. Also represented by J. DEREK MCCORQUINDALE; JAMES R. BARNEY, JASON LEE ROMRELL, Washington, DC.

RYAN MAJERUS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., DEBORAH 

A. BYNUM. 
 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, O’MALLEY, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 May 4, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 11.1



                       CHESAPEAKE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK
                     for the three years ended December 31, 1997

                     (Share amounts in thousands, dollar amounts
                      in millions, except for per share amounts)
  <TABLE>
  <CAPTION>
                                                     1997      1996      1995
                                                     ----      ----      ----
  <S>                                              <C>      <C>        <C>
  Basic:
        Weighted average number of common shares
         outstanding                                23,149   23,528     23,824
                                                    ======   ======     ======
        Income before extraordinary item            $50.9     $30.1      $93.4
        Extraordinary item                           (2.3)        -          -
                                                    -----     -----      -----
          Net income                                $48.6     $30.1      $93.4
                                                    =====     =====      =====
        Per share amount:
          Earnings before extraordinary item        $2.20     $1.28      $3.92
          Extraordinary item                         (.10)        -          -
                                                    -----     -----      -----
          Earnings                                  $2.10     $1.28      $3.92
                                                    =====     =====      =====
  Diluted:
        Weighted average number of common
          shares outstanding                        23,149   23,528     23,824
        Net additional common shares
         issuable upon exercise of
         dilutive options, determined
         by treasury stock method using
         the average price                             211      117        227
        Common shares, equivalents, and other       ------   ------     ------
           potentially dilutive securities          23,360   23,645     24,051
                                                    ======   ======     ======
        Income before extraordinary item            $50.9     $30.1      $93.4
        Extraordinary item                           (2.3)        -          -
                                                    -----     -----      -----
          Net income                                $48.6     $30.1      $93.4
                                                    =====     =====      =====
        Per share amount:
          Earnings before extraordinary item        $2.18     $1.27      $3.88
          Extraordinary item                         (.10)        -          -
                                                    -----     -----      -----
          Earnings                                  $2.08     $1.27      $3.88
                                                    =====     =====      =====

  </TABLE>
**EXHIBIT      32**

> CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection      with the Annual Report of Champion Industries, Inc. (the “Company”)      on Form 10-K/A for the period ending October 31, 2004 as filed with the      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),       we,  Marshall T. Reynolds, Todd R. Fry and Toney K. Adkins, Chief Executive      Officer, Chief Financial Officer and President and Chief Operating Officer,      respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,      as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that      to our knowledge:

        - The Report fully          complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities          Exchange Act of 1934, and

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

 

By:         /s/Marshall T. Reynolds                                              

 

By:       /s/ Todd R. Fry                                                              

 

By:       /s/ Toney K. Adkins                                                           

A signed      copy of this written statement required by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley      Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff      upon request

Date:       February 2, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 31, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 4522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-398]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Amended Notice of 
Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel, February 20, 
2007, 2 p.m. to February 20, 2007, 3 p.m., National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in 
the Federal Register on January 12, 2007, FR 07-100.
    The February 20, 2007 Meeting Panel Name was changed from VAD 
Technologies to Modified Hemoglobin Production. The meeting is closed 
to the public.

    Dated: January 24, 2007.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-398 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 230.17 One thousand four hundred seventy-two (1472) service day inspection. ( a ) *General.* Before any steam locomotive is initially put in service or brought out of retirement, and after every 1472 service days or 15 years, whichever is earlier, an individual competent to conduct the inspection shall inspect the entire boiler. In the case of a new locomotive or a locomotive being brought out of retirement, the initial 15 year period shall begin on the day that the locomotive is placed in service or 365 calendar days after the first flue tube is installed in the locomotive, whichever comes first. This 1472 service day inspection shall include all annual, and 5th annual, inspection requirements, as well as any items required by the steam locomotive owner and/or operator or the FRA inspector. At this time, the locomotive owner and/or operator shall complete, update and verify the locomotive specification card (FRA Form No. 4), to reflect the condition of the boiler at the time of this inspection. See appendices A and B of this part.
( b ) *Filing inspection reports.* Within 30 days of completing the 1472 service day inspection, the steam locomotive owner and/or operator shall, for each steam locomotive inspected, file in the place where the steam locomotive is maintained and with the FRA Regional Administrator for that region a report of inspection (FRA Form No. 3), and a completed FRA Form No.4. See appendix C of this part.
#### Frederick Steffin, *Respondent, v.*Mary A. Lockwood and others, *Appellants.*

—Judgment and order affirmed as to George Steffin ' and Mary A. Lockwood, with ■ costs, and leave given to them to answer on payment of costs of demurrer and appeal; and judgment and order reversed as to William H. Lockwood, with costs, and the demurrer as to him sustained, with costs of the demurrer, and. leave given to the plaintiff to amend his complaint on payment to William II. Lockwood of costs of appeal and demurrer. Opinion by

Hardin, J.
-----Original Message----- 

From: dakotaman@digitaldakota.net [mailto:dakotaman@digitaldakota.net] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 3:47 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 28, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (RIN 

1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from charging 

higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for mental 

health treatment than they would for other physical health care. Thank you 

for ensuring that mental health care and physical health care coverage are 

included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin Blum 

300 Medary Ave. S. #57 

Brookings, SD 57006
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 6/24/15 9:44 PM

Received: June 23, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jl2-mtl5

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: API

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0327

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Leigh LoPresti

Address: 

1085 Apple Tree Lane

Brookfield, WI, 53005-6823

Email: wiscleigh@gmail.com

Phone: 262-957-4303

Organization: None

General Comment

Conflicts of interest are a fact of life--none of us lives in a hermetically sealed environment. 

However, when someone is paying you for advice, as in the case of financial "professionals" (I 

will explain the quotation marks below), any conflicts of interest should be avoided or resolved 

in favor of the client. I am a physician, and we take an oath to put the patient first. Not everyone 

in my profession does so, to be sure, but those of us who do find our work relatively 

unconstrained and quite rewarding. If requiring the same responsibilities (putting the client 

first) of financial "professionals" is a problem, then they are not truly professionals, hence my 

use of quotation marks. A case in point is from the financial crisis: Goldman Sachs put together 

an offering of poor mortgages, sold it to some clients, then bet against it in the market by selling 

it short, because they knew what it contained. To me, to sell something they knew to be "toxic" 

to clients was an outrage, but to then bet against your own clients??

Professionalism is a way of life that is taught in medical schools to some extent, as is ethics. 

Neither appears to be taught in business school or required of financial "professionals" in any 

other way. What I have read of this rule is an important first step to making the financial 

industries professional. I am fully in favor of the rule.

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b4fb97&format=xml&show... 6/24/2015
August 5, 2014 Houston, TX 

Refinery Rule Comment 

My name is Dr. Beverly Wright. I am Director of the Dillard University 

Deep South Center for Environmental Justice in New Orleans, 

Louisiana. I have worked with fence line communities for over 2 0 

years and have experienced first and the detrimental impacts of toxic 

releases on these communities. I have seen the mental anguish, the 

physical harms, the overall diminished qualitY life, the noxious smells 

and the overwhelming environmental insult to people living in close 

proximity to refineries. I have witnessed the devastation to the health 

of families potentially due to the release of toxins from these plants. I 

understand fence line communities. I understand their fears of 

environmental accidents, their fears of death and their fears that their 

voices are too small to be heard. It is that understanding which has 

led our Center to work with EPA on behalf of fence line and other 

environmental justice communities over the years. 

I strongly support EPA's proposed refinery rule. For the first time, 

EPA would require refineries to monitor concentrations of benzene in 

the air. The EPA has set a benzene level of 9 ugjm (9 micrograms per (~o l"-' 

million) as am acceptable level. The Louisiana Air Pollutant Ambient 

Air Standard for benzene is currently 12ugjm. This difference can 

potentially translate into a great improvement in air quality for our 

citizens. .JIY"~v 

We understand that the rule require .r the installation of 12 to 24 

monitors on the perimeter, the collection of air samples at two week 

intervals, and that this raw data be made availablek .fw- fh~~ 

The DSCEJ has conducted an air quality J! ~ 

focusing 9fl im-- l ~ · tm - - f th~ BP Deep Water )Horizon .-- ~ . /I.Jy-_j Q~ 1-'·f'"-11 ' .... (0~ r. ·1 ~ 0 (}Jv !V- ll (_,l) ,/1- I \J .._~ ' 
August 5, 2014 Houston, TX 

explosion and oil spill entitled ~~Clearing the Air: An Analysis of Air 

Emissions from the Depp Water Horizon Oil Spill." The study 

conducted in 2013 involved obtaining and analyzing publicly available 

air quality data ~ associated with the spill. Stationary monitors, 

because of the methods used to collect samples, completely missed 

the event. 

The Deep South Center strongly suppor ~ the elimination of 

exemptions from Air Pollution Regulations during Startup, Shutdown 

and Malfunctions. A constant complaint from fenceline communities 

with which the Center has worked over the last twenty years was that 

incidents of continuous flaring and accidental releases occurred over 

weekend periods, when LDEQ offices were closed. Even LDEQ hotline 

calls coming in over weekends were generally not responded to until 

the following Monday or T_uesday, by which time, the evidence was 

gone! 

States should be required to enforce the regulations when excess 

pollution occurs during any of these processes at an oil refinery. 

States should also be prohibited from issuing permit waivers which 

allow increased air pollution. Not closing the ~~permit waiver 

loophole" would only serve to dramatically reduce the practical
#### Charles F. Holly, *Respondent, v.*The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
§ 1242.39 Lease rentals—debit and credit, other rents—debit and credit, and repairs billed to others (accounts 31-26-00, 32-26-00, 35-26-00, 36-26-00 and 40-26-98). ( a ) Separate common debit expense accounts in proportion to the assignment of solely related freight or passenger service in each individual debit account. If there are no solely related expenses or if the solely related expenses are assigned entirely to freight or passenger service, separate common debit expense accounts on the same percentage basis calculated for the separation of administration (account XX-26-01).
( b ) Separate all common credit expense accounts on the same percentages calculated for the separation of administration (account XX-26-01).
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*George Hill *v.*John McKeon, *as District Attorney, etc.*

Order affirmed, with . ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Editorial Note on Part 173
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 70 FR 56098, Sept. 23, 2005.

§ 173.468 Test for LSA-III material. ( a ) LSA-III Class 7 (radioactive) material must meet the test requirement of paragraph (b) of this section. Any differences between the material to be transported and the test material must be taken into account in determining whether the test requirements have been met.
( b ) *Test method.* ( 1 ) The specimen representing no less than the entire contents of the package must be immersed for 7 days in water at ambient temperature.
( 2 ) The volume of water to be used in the test must be sufficient to ensure that at the end of the test period the free volume of the unabsorbed and unreacted water remaining will be at least 10% of the volume of the specimen itself.
( 3 ) The water must have an initial pH of 6-8 and a maximum conductivity of 10 micromho/cm at 20 °C (68 °F).
( 4 ) The total activity of the free volume of water must be measured following the 7 day immersion test and must not exceed 0.1 A2.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REYNALDO LOPEZ, an individual,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

EUNICE DELGADILLO, an individual; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DELTA AIR LINES, INC., a Georgia corporation and DOES, 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 56325

D.C. No. 2:16

- cv

- 04497

- DSF

- AJW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2018 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 56325

Reynaldo Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his diversity a ction alleging age discrimination under the California Fair

Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. Deppe v. United Airlines , 217 F.3d 1262, 1264 (9th

Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district cou rt properly granted summary judgment because Lopez failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fac t as to whether defendant’s non

discriminatory reasons for terminating him were pretextual. See Guz v. Bechtel

Nat’l, Inc.

, 8 P.3d 1089, 1113

- 14

, 1118

- 19 ( Cal. 2000) (setting forth burden

shifting framework for analyzing discrimination claims under the FEHA and

noting that summary judgment for the employer is appropriate where, given the

strength of the employer’s legitimate reasons, countervailing circumstantial

evidence is too weak to raise a rational inference of discrimination).

We reject as meritless Lo pez’s contentions concerning ineffective assistance

of counsel

. See Nicholson v. Rushen , 767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985)

(“Generally, a plaintiff in a civil case has no right to effective assistance of

counsel.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued3 17

- 56325

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not

consider documents and facts not pre sented to the district court. See United States

v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to

the district court are n ot part of the record on appeal. ”)

.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 236.820a Switch, power-operated.

A switch operated by an electrically, hydraulically, or pneumatically driven switch-and-lock movement.

[49 FR 3388, Jan. 26, 1984]
##### 



Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
    for the period ended June 30, 2005, to which this
    certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
    Periodic Report), fully complies with the
    requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the
    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|
| | 2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                  





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ W. Douglas Parker  
| |                        
| | W. Douglas Parker      
| | Chief Executive Officer
|
| | /s/ Derek J. Kerr      
| |                        
| | Derek J. Kerr          
| | Chief Financial Officer