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

[112th Congress Public Law 268]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 2441]]

Public Law 112-268
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To authorize the issuance of right-of-way permits for natural gas 
pipelines in Glacier National Park, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Jan. 
                       14, 2013 -  [H.R. 4606]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 16 USC 161 note.>> PERMITS FOR EXISTING NATURAL 
                              GAS PIPELINES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior may issue right-of-
way permits for each natural gas pipeline (including all appurtenances 
used in the operation of the natural gas pipeline) that, as of March 1, 
2012, is located within the boundary of Glacier National Park.
    (b) Terms and Conditions.--A permit issued under subsection (a) 
shall be--
            (1) issued as a right-of-way renewal, consistent with laws 
        (including regulations) generally applicable to utility rights-
        of-way within units of the National Park System;
            (2) for a width of not more than 25 feet on either side of 
        the centerline of the natural gas pipeline; and
            (3) subject to any terms and conditions that the Secretary 
        of the Interior determines to be necessary.

    Approved January 14, 2013.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4606:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 112-627 (Comm. on Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 158 (2012):
                                    Dec. 17, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 158 (2013):
                                    Jan. 2, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-09-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,416,843
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    835,515
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,069,564
<PP&E>                                      65,971,057
<DEPRECIATION>                              24,025,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,390,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,012,454
<BONDS>                                     26,352,029
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       330,320
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,695,498
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,390,301
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            55,176,784
<CGS>                                       14,322,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,364,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,313,635
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             759,007
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                695,326
<INCOME-TAX>                                   197,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            498,326
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (400,000)
<CHANGES>                                    (239,000)
<NET-INCOME>                                 (140,674)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
§ 219.301 Mandatory reasonable suspicion testing. ( a ) Each railroad must require a regulated employee to submit to a breath alcohol test when the railroad has reasonable suspicion to believe that the regulated employee has violated any prohibition of subpart B of this part concerning use of alcohol. The railroad's determination that reasonable suspicion exists to require the regulated employee to undergo an alcohol test must be based on specific, contemporaneous, articulable observations concerning the appearance, behavior, speech, or body odors of the employee. A Federal reasonable suspicion alcohol test is not required to confirm the on-duty possession of alcohol.
( b ) Each railroad must require a regulated employee to submit to a drug test when the railroad has reasonable suspicion to believe that the regulated employee has violated the prohibitions of subpart B of this part concerning use of controlled substances. The railroad's determination that reasonable suspicion exists to require the regulated employee to undergo a drug test must be based on specific, contemporaneous, articulable observations concerning the appearance, behavior, speech, or body odors of the employee. Such observations may include indications of the chronic and withdrawal effects of drugs.
( c ) Reasonable suspicion observations made under this section must comply with the requirements of § 219.303.
( d ) As provided by § 219.11(b)(2), in any case where an employee is suffering a substantiated medical emergency and is subject to alcohol or drug testing under this subpart, necessary medical treatment must be accorded priority over provision of the breath or body fluid specimens. However, when the employee's condition is stabilized, reasonable suspicion testing must be completed if within the eight-hour limit provided for in § 219.305.
From: Michael Mulling [mailto:Michael.Mulling@RaymondJames.com] 

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:57 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

This is to make my public comment known to you that I AM VOTING YES TO THE 

PROPOSED RULE:

EBSA 29CFR PARTS 2509 & 2510 “ FIDUCIARY” CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULE 

RETIREMENT INVESTMENT ADVICE.

I URGE YOU TO PASS THIS RULE IN IT’s ENTIRETY. WHILE I AM NOT FOR 

MORE REGULATION IN OUR INDUSTRY, I AM FOR PUTTING THE CLIENT’s 

BEST INTEREST BEFORE MAKING ANY RETIREMENT OR INVESTMENT 

ADVICE AS A FINANCIAL ADVISOR.

Thank you,

Michael Mulling

Michael Mulling 

Michael F. Mulling

Registered Principal-RJFS

www.Stonewall-Asset.com

President

STONEWALL ASSET MANAGEMENT, Inc.

Independent Registered Investment Advisor

Oakbrook Office Center

1401 Bombay Lane

Roswell, GA 30076

___________________________________________________________

Office: 770-667-5767

Fax: 770-667-5769

800-992-5722

Securities offered through Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. Member FINRA/SIPC. 
Raymond James Financial Services does not accept orders and/or instructions regarding your account by e-mail, 

voice mail, fax or any alternate method. Transactional details do not supersede normal trade confirmations or 

statements. E-mail sent through the Internet is not secure or confidential. Raymond James Financial Services 

reserves the right to monitor all e-mail.

Any information provided in this e-mail has been prepared from sources believed to be reliable, but is not 

guaranteed by Raymond James Financial Services and is not a complete summary or statement of all available data 

necessary for making an investment decision. Any information provided is for informational purposes only and 

does not constitute a recommendation. Raymond James Financial Services and its employees may own options, 

rights or warrants to purchase any of the securities mentioned in e-mail. This e-mail is intended only for the person 

or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, 

retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or 

entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the 

sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.

The opinions expressed are those of Stonewall Asset Management, Inc. and not necessarily those of RJFS.
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10368 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus THOMAS EDWARD BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CR-183-G

- - - - - - - - - - December 20, 1995 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant argues that the district court erred in increasing his base offense level for obstruction of justice and in allowing the introduction of evidence of his prior conviction for impeachment purposes. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and find no reversible error.
AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MEARS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FINISAR CORPORATION,

Defendant-Cross-Appellant

______________________ 

2016-1485, 2016-1503

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:13-cv-00376-JRG, 

Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

GEORGE C. SUMMERFIELD, JR., Stadheim & Grear, 

Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also 

represented by KYLE L. HARVEY, ROBERT M. SPALDING,

CHRISTOPHER H. ST. PETER, ROLF STADHEIM. 

DAVID C. RADULESCU, Radulescu LLP, New York, NY, 

argued for defendant-cross-appellant. Also represented by 

ROBIN M. DAVIS, MARIA GRANOVSKY, ETAI LAHAV, TIGRAN 

VARDANIAN. 

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

January 11, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
-----Original Message----- 

From: naturenurtures@charter.net [mailto:naturenurtures@charter.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:32 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 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, 

Barb Spiecker 

4566 Deep Woods Dr 

Traverse City, MI 49684
1 

### Moran, Nicole

From: Moran, Nicole Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 2:13 PM To: William Bider; Christine Mennicke Cc: Toensing, Don Subject: RE: Comment Letter - KS' Draft CCR Part 256 Plan

Bill, My apologies for the mistake, the page numbers are actually 21,431 - 21,433 of the Federal Register. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thanks, Nicole

Nicole Moran US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Air and Waste Management Division Waste Enforcement and Materials Management Branch 11201 Renner Boulevard Lenexa, KS 66219 913-551-7641 (phone) moran.nicole@epa.gov

From: William Bider [mailto:wbider@kdheks.gov] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 9:55 AM
To: Moran, Nicole; Christine Mennicke Cc: Toensing, Don Subject: RE: Comment Letter - KS' Draft CCR Part 256 Plan

Nicole,

In studying your comments I have a question. Your comments related to 256.26 that relate to a state h aving the authority to grant compliance schedule extensions i nclude a recommendation that we look at pages 21,34 2 to 21,343 of the Federal Register. Are these correct page numbe rs. I did not see anything on these pages related to this subject?

Bill Bider Director Bureau of Waste Management

From: Moran, Nicole [ mailto:moran.nicole@epa.gov ] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 3:18 PM To: William Bider; Christine Mennicke Cc: Toensing, Don Subject: Comment Letter - KS' Draft CCR Part 256 Plan

Bill,2 Enclosed is an electronic copy of EPA’s Comment Let ter for the State of Kansas Draft Coal Combustion R esiduals Part 256 Plan submittal. The official letter is in the mail . Please make note that there were a few changes t o the checklist that you received yesterday following OGC’s review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact myself or Don Toensing. Thanks, Nicole

Nicole Moran US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Air and Waste Management Division Waste Enforcement and Materials Management Branch 11201 Renner Boulevard Lenexa, KS 66219 913-551-7641 (phone) moran.nicole@epa.gov
#### § 236.737 Cut-section, relayed.

A cut-section where the energy for one track circuit is supplied through front contacts or through front and polar contacts of the track relay for the adjoining track circuit.
[Civ. No. 12981.

Second Dist., Div. Two.

June 27, 1941.]

#### JOSEPH H. RUBIO, Appellant, v. BOARD OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Respondents.

Loren A. Butts for Appellant.

Ray L. Chesebro, City Attorney, Frederick von Schrader, Assistant City Attorney, and George William Adams and Louis A. Babior, Deputies City Attorney, for Respondents.

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of defendants after trial before the court without a jury in a proceeding to require defendant Civil Service Commissioners to allow him seniority credit from July 1, 1925, to and including December 16, 1935, as a “mechanic” in the Department of Water and Power of the city of Los Angeles, the successor in interest of the Department of Public Service of said city, plaintiff appeals.

The essential facts are these:

July 17, 1922, plaintiff was appointed to the position of mechanic in the Department of Public Service, the predecessor in interest of the Department of Water and Power of the city of Los Angeles. This position he held until July 1, 3923, when he was appointed to the position of “structural steel worker”, which title was subsequently changed to “structural steel shop worker”. This position had been duly created by the Board of Public Service Commissioners and included in the classified civil service of defendant city for more than six months prior to July 1, 1925, the effective date of the present charter of defendant city, which contains section 121, hereinafter set forth *in haec verba.*

*807Plaintiff from July 1,1923, at the request and with the full knowledge and consent of his superiors in the Department of Public Service, and later its successor in interest, the Department of Water and Power, performed in a capable and satisfactory manner the duties of structural steel shop worker.

Section 121 of the present city charter of defendant city, so far as material here, reads as follows:

> “Sec. 121. All officers and employees who at the time of taking effect of this article, would be included in the classified civil service, and who shall have been continuously in the service of the city for a period of six months prior to the adoption of this article, shall be deemed to have the necessary qualifications required by the provisions hereof, and shall retain their respective positions until removed for cause, as provided herein ...”

This is the sole question for us to determine:

*Was plaintiff blanketed into the classified civil service of defendant city under and pursuant to the provisions of section 121,*supra, *of the present charter of the city of Los Angeles?*

This question must be answered in the affirmative, for the reasons stated in *Bente*v. *Department of Water and Power,*No. 13087 *[ante,*p. 589 (114 Pac. (2d) 699)], which we have this day decided.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment is reversed and the trial court is ordered to issue a writ of mandate as prayed.

Moore, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.

Respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 25, 1941. Shenk,. J., voted for a hearing.
§ 220.27 Identification. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the identification of each wayside, base or yard station shall include at least the following minimum elements, stated in the order listed: ( 1 ) Name of railroad. An abbreviated name or initial letters of the railroad may be used where the name or initials are in general usage and are understood in the railroad industry; and
( 2 ) Name and location of office or other unique designation.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the identification of each mobile station shall consist of the following elements, stated in the order listed: ( 1 ) Name of railroad. An abbreviated name or initial letters of the railroad may be used where the name or initial letters are in general usage and are understood in the railroad industry;
( 2 ) Train name (number), if one has been assigned, or other appropriate unit designation; and
( 3 ) When necessary, the word “locomotive”, “motorcar”, or other unique identifier which indicates to the listener the precise mobile transmitting station.
( c ) If positive identification is achieved in connection with switching, classification, and similar operations wholly within a yard, fixed and mobile units may use short identification after the initial transmission and acknowledgment consistent with applicable Federal Communications Commission regulations governing “Station Identification”.
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: 6
Federal Reserve Bank of: Atlanta

## Filings received during the week ending March 8, 2014

|Filer                               | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     | End of Comment Period                             
|----------------------------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|BANCO DE CREDITO E INVERSIONES S.A. | * 3A1         | Banco De Credito E Inversiones, Empresas Juan Yarur S.A.C., Inversiones Petro S.A., Inversiones Baquio LTDA., Inversiones Nueve LTDA., and Administraciones Baquio LTDA., all of Santiago, Chile, to become bank holding companies by acquiring 100 percent of CM Florida Holdings, Inc., Coral Gables, Florida, and its subsidiary, City National Bank of Florida, Miami, Florida. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:08/08/2013
|Newspaper:                          | Not available
|Federal Register:                   | 08/08/2013   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location     | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|-------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|FLORIDA BK, TAMPA, FLORIDA | 704737 | 10/28/2013 | 03/05/2014     | S         | Int Sm Bank

## 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
§ 215.111 Defective plain bearing. A railroad may not place or continue in service a car, if the car has a plain bearing— ( a ) That is missing, cracked, or broken;
( b ) On which the bearing liner— ( 1 ) Is loose; or
( 2 ) Has a broken out piece; or
( c ) That shows signs of having been overheated, as evidenced by— ( 1 ) Melted babbitt;
( 2 ) Smoke from hot oil; or
( 3 ) Journal surface damage.
Fw: Smog standards

Tricia Crabtree to: crabtree.tricia 04/08/2010 10:55 AM

From: Cathy Milbourn/DC/USEPA/US

To: GERALD STOWELL <3095958@online.apus.edu>

Cc: bb674@online.apus.edu, Alison Davis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/23/2010 12:20 PM

Subject: Re: Smog standards

Thank you Mike- I have passed your comments on to our program staff.

Cathy

GERALD STOWELL Cathy, I have been recently been researchin... 03/23/2010 11:40:50 AM

From: GERALD STOWELL <3095958@online.apus.edu>

To: Cathy Milbourn/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: bb674@online.apus.edu

Date: 03/23/2010 11:40 AM

Subject: Smog standards

Cathy, 

I have been recently been researching the growing smog problems within the 

United States. I have been overwhelmed to learn the extent of the smog 

problems especially in regards to its affects on peoples health. In the area 

where I live in Washington state we only suffer from smog a few times a year 

due to changes in wind patterns, but during those times each year I am 

reminded of the ill effects that some people are forced to endure every day. 

I belive that the higher standards that have been proposed by the EPA are a 

step in the right direction. The only thing that I fear is that no matter how 

much we do hear in the United States if other countries do not match our 

efforts companies from within the United States will outsource work, create 

the same amount of pollution and the over all affect on the environment will 

not have changed. 

Thank you,

Mike Stowell
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 31, 1995 (137), Para 137.27 Adjournment]
[Page 1821]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.137.27  adjournment

  On motion of Mr. HAYWORTH, at 9 o'clock and 6 minutes p.m., the House 
adjourned.
```