alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 33.60 General provisions. ( a ) The Department of Transportation may take specific official actions to implement the provisions of this part.
( b ) These official actions include, but are not limited to, Rating Authorizations, Directives, Planning Orders, and Memoranda of Understanding.
H. Res. 183

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 28, 2001.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2330) making appropriations for Agriculture,

Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September

30, 2002, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined

to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. The amendment printed in the report of the Committee

on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as

adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.

Points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, for
2

•HRES 183 EH

failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority

in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering

an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of

the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in

clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill,

as amended, to the House with such further amendments as

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion

to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 52156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4481]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, Molecular Oncology P01.
    Date: October 2-3, 2007.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Michael B. Small, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer 
Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Blvd., Room 
8127, Bethesda, MD 20892-8328, 301-402-0996, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ff8c929e939392bf929e9693d1919697d1989089"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="196a7478757574597478707537777071377e766f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 5, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4481 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0740.html[7/21/2015 11:22:38 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-ojxp

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

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-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0740

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: ANONYMOUS Anonymous

General Comment

i AM ALREADY RETIRED AND IN ANY WAY, I DIDN'T NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO DIRECT ME

 HOW TO DO IT. THIS IS THE USA, NOT RUSSIA OR CHINA OR ANY OF THE ARABIC

 NATIONS....THIS PLAN OF INTERFERING WITH ONE'S RETIREMENT PLAN VIOLATES THE

 CONSTITUTION, BUT , OH, I FORGOT WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT THAT HAS DISCARDED THE

 CONSTITUTION. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO MEDDLE WITH A PRIVATE CITIZEN'S

 RETIREMENT PLAN AS IT DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MEDDLE WITH A CITIZEN'S BANK

 ACCOUNT AND HOW THEY PAY THEIR BILLS. THIS IS AN UNREASONABLE AND

 UNACCEPTABLE PLAN.
[ARTICLE]                        5
[LEGEND]                         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY
                                 FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
                                 FROM THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K
                                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
                                 ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                                 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
[MULTIPLIER]                     1000
<TABLE>
<S>                              <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                    12-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                DEC-31-1997
[PERIOD-END]                     DEC-31-1997
[CASH]                           290009
[SECURITIES]                     1211920
[RECEIVABLES]                    95208
[ALLOWANCES]                     5736
[INVENTORY]                      2826
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                 1749514
[PP&E]                           149416
[DEPRECIATION]                   102014
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                   2226429
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]            262958
[BONDS]                          0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]            0
[PREFERRED]                      5893
[COMMON]                         16582
[OTHER-SE]                       1360705
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]     2226429
[SALES]                          21147
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                 464646
[CGS]                            14336
[TOTAL-COSTS]                    369121
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                 0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                 0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]               0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                  242584
[INCOME-TAX]                     99600
[INCOME-CONTINUING]              93501
[DISCONTINUED]                   0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                  0
[CHANGES]                        0
[NET-INCOME]                     93501
[EPS-PRIMARY]                    2.87
[EPS-DILUTED]                    2.26
</TABLE>
#### Look Ding v. Kennedy.

Joint and Seveeal Obligations — Judgments.

A lease executed by different firms and individuals jointly is, as to them, joint and several, and a judgment thereon may be taken against any firm or person who was a party to it, but not a several judgment against an individual who was a member of the firm.

*Appeal from, the County Court of Arapahoe County.*

Mr. F. J. Hangs and Mr. Wm. H. Andrews, for appellant.

Mr. Willis Stidger and Mr. Geo. Stidger, for appellee.

Reed, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The Sing Wah Company and three or four other Chinese companies and individuals rented premises of appellee. Appellant executed the lease on behalf of Sing Wah Company. A part of the rent being due and unpaid, suit was brought against appellant, as “Look Ding, doing business as Sing Wah & Company,” and the other parties executing the lease. Look Ding was the only party served. He appeared and defended. The case was tried to a jury. Verdict and judgment against him, individually, for $141, from which this appeal was prosecuted. The correctness and amount of the claim do not appear to have been contested. The only question was in regard to the individual liability of appellant. The only question of fact to be determined by the jury was whether he was individually doing business under the name of Sing Wah & Company, or a partnership existed, of which he was a member. If the firm was composed of himself and others, no legal judgment could have been had against him personally. *Craig v.*Smith, 10 Colo. 220; *Coates v.*Preston, 105 Ill. 470; *Shafer v.*Hewitt, 6 Colo. App. 374. If appellant *73alone did business, and assumed tbe firm name and style of Sing Wah & Company, an individual judgment was correct.

"The different firms and persons who executed the lease executed it jointly. Consequently, as to them, it was joint and several; and judgment could have been taken against any firm or person who was a party to it, but not against an individual member of a firm.

The testimony on the question of fact was contradictory. It was found against appellant, on very meager and unsatisfactory evidence of former statements of appellant that might have been misunderstood; but juries are made judges of the veracity of witnesses, and discredited the evidence of appellant. The finding of the jury on questions of fact, on contradictory evidence, when there is no marked preponderance against the finding, will not be disturbed. The judgment will be affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 391

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 391 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 391.61 Drivers who were regularly employed before January 1, 1971.

The provisions of §§ 391.21 (relating to applications for employment), 391.23 (relating to investigations and inquiries), and 391.31 (relating to road tests) do not apply to a driver who has been a single-employer driver (as defined in § 390.5 of this subchapter) of a motor carrier for a continuous period which began before January 1, 1971, as long as he/she continues to be a single-employer driver of that motor carrier.

[86 FR 57076, Oct. 14, 2021]
; Generated by FastSum - an extremely fast checksum utility.
; Go to www.fastsum.com to get your own copy for free.
;
D20409AB38F8EF21A142D8E666320929 *17312.doc
53ADCD054F448C347C39334ECE757736 *17314.doc
872AB83BD2E8BD6A40642777D9378908 *17316.doc
B3FCA1AB9ADB90482B18EC3B9375FEBE *17317.doc
3A6E4A472AD9A5DD1F38578DB48DF685 *17324.doc
2A1AF28AFDAC4FF56874208E697A785B *20292.doc
FBE62977FA693D627CAAB9E0935CE4D8 *22604.doc
638A929F4C3E71844CFC63B3612A9863 *24979.doc
CDB28B4F7680CDC835958F8A95232FD2 *30035.doc
93618F707081F22F777F193D37980FEB *34597.doc
0AF1695C6F05DDE6B46A86344FDC518C *The CRonicle Newsletter Fourth Quarter - 2003.htm
H. Res. 10

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 3, 2001.

Resolved, That at 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, January 20,

2001, the House shall proceed to the West Front of the Capitol for the purpose of attending the inaugural ceremonies of

the President and Vice President of the United States; and

that upon the conclusion of the ceremonies the House stands

adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, January 30, 2001, or

pursuant to such other concurrent resolution of adjournment

as may then apply.

Attest:

Clerk.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00116-CR

ALLEN DEWAYNE THOMAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 415th District Court

of Parker County (CR17-0401)

December 19, 2019

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed May 22, 2024. 

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 

________________

No. 3D23-2219 

Lower Tribunal No. 91-13989 SP 

________________

Florida Recovery Solutions, Inc., etc., 

Appellant,

vs. 

First Union National Bank of Florida, et al., 

Appellees. 

An Appeal from a non-final order from the County Court for MiamiDade County, Myriam Lehr, Judge. 

Allison Law Group and Ann M. Allison (Temple Terrace), for appellant.

Friedman & Greenberg, P.A., and Debra L. Greenberg (Plantation), for 

appellee Westport Recovery Corporation.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
1210-AB32-2-1113.html[7/24/2015 6:05:55 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvq-tsu3

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

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-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1607

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Maria Bowman

General Comment

isn't it bad enough I have been broke since you took office. Back off and leave my retirement alone. I know my

 bills and you don't. I am not the one who has a spending sickness, that my friend is you. Stop sticking your nose

 into my affairs. Learn to budget. If you need money so bad take it from your own pocket or congress or senate.

 You get enough of mine. I am done with you destroying everything you touch.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 106

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the artwork displayed in the Capitol, the Capitol Visitor Center, and the office buildings

of the House of Representatives should represent the contributions of

women to American society.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 2001

Ms. KAPTUR (for herself, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr.

CUMMINGS, Ms. DELAURO, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FILNER, Ms. HOOLEY of

Oregon, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mrs. MINK of

Hawaii, Mrs. MORELLA, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. RIVERS, Mr. SANDERS,

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, and Mrs. THURMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

the artwork displayed in the Capitol, the Capitol Visitor

Center, and the office buildings of the House of Representatives should represent the contributions of women

to American society.

Whereas throughout the history of the United States, women

have made enduring contributions to the development

and advancement of American society;

Whereas women have won the right to vote, have borne and

reared our children, have helped to build communities,

have become nurses, doctors, teachers, lawyers, and
2

•HRES 106 IH

Members of Congress, have worked full time, have explored outer space, and have contributed widely in all

walks of life;

Whereas women have demonstrated high levels of achievement in every aspect of American society;

Whereas the artwork displayed in the Capitol, the Capitol

Visitor Center, and the office buildings of the House of

Representatives reflects American society, and being represented in the artwork is an important honor to individuals who have made significant contributions to the history of the United States;

Whereas of all the pieces of artwork displayed in the Capitol

and in the office buildings of the House of Representatives, less than 5 percent are pieces that depict the contributions of women to American society; and

Whereas the artwork displayed in the Capitol and in the office buildings of the House of Representatives severely

underrepresents the contributions of women to American

society: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That—

2 (1) it is the sense of the House of Representa3 tives that the artwork displayed in the Capitol, the

4 Capitol Visitor Center, and the office buildings of

5 the House of Representatives should also represent

6 the contributions of women to American society; and

7 (2) the House of Representatives expresses full

8 support for the efforts of the House Fine Arts

9 Board, the Joint Committee on the Library, and the

10 Architect of the Capitol to incorporate into their reg-
3

•HRES 106 IH

1 ular plan for the Capitol, the Capitol Visitor Center,

2 and the office buildings of the House of Representa3 tives a selection of displayed artwork that is more

4 fully representative of the contributions of women to

5 American society.

Æ
GAO-06-194R NAEP Exclusion Rates for Students with Disabilities 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

October 28, 2005 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, 

 Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

Subject: National Assessment of Educational Progress Exclusion Rates for Students with 

 Disabilities 

Dear Senator Kennedy: 

In July 2005, we issued a report entitled No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with 

Disabilities Participated in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved

(GAO-05-618) in response to your request for information about inclusion of students with 

disabilities in the statewide assessments. We found that most states were including these 

students in the assessments. In addition, we reviewed the National Assessment of Education 

Progress (NAEP) data to determine the extent to which students with disabilities were 

included in this assessment. Also called “The Nation’s Report Card,” the NAEP has been 

used to track trends in student achievement over time or to compare student performance in a 

particular state with the national average. With the assistance of Department of Education 

(Education) officials, we interpreted that in 2002 five percent of students with disabilities 

were excluded from the NAEP reading assessment. 

Two months after the report’s issuance, Education provided us with new information 

regarding how the NAEP data concerning the exclusion of students with disabilities should 

be interpreted. In reviewing this information, we determined that the exclusion rate for 

students with disabilities was much higher than previously reported, with about 40 percent of 

the students with disabilities who were part of the 2002 NAEP reading assessment sample 

excluded from the actual testing. In addition, the percentages of students with disabilities 

who were excluded from the testing varied by grade. For example: 

• 40 percent of students with disabilities were excluded from the grade 4 assessment, 

• 37 percent of students with disabilities were excluded from the grade 8 assessment, 

and 

• 43 percent of students with disabilities were excluded from the grade 12 assessment. 
This high exclusion rate underscores the importance of the recommendation in our report that 

NAEP explore strategies to reduce the number of students with disabilities who are excluded 

from the assessment. Education indicated in its comment letter that it intends to do a better 

job of including all students in the assessment. 

We provided a draft of this correspondence to Education for review. Education officials 

provided technical comments that we incorporated into the correspondence as appropriate. 

For information on the inclusion of students with disabilities in statewide assessments and 

NAEP, go to http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-618 or call me at (202) 512-7215. 

Sincerely yours, 

Marnie S. Shaul 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

and Income Security Issues 

GAO-06-194R NAEP Exclusion Rates for Students with Disabilities Page 2
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, July 11, 1995 (92), Para 92.29 Recorded Vote]
[Page 1110]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.92.29  recorded vote

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

       Page 16, line 1 strike ``$2,596,700,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,576,700,000''. 

It was decided in the

Yeas

306

affirmative

Nays

121
```
#### § 38.161 Moveable aisle armrests.

A minimum of 50% of aisle seats, including all moveable or removable seats at wheelchair or mobility aide securement locations, shall have an armrest on the aisle side which can be raised, removed, or retracted to permit easy entry or exit.

[63 FR 51700, 51703, Sept. 28, 1998]
|EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Robert H. Young, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Robert H. Young     
(Robert H. Young)
Chief Executive Officer
March 30, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Central Vermont Public Service Corporation ("CVPS") and will be retained by CVPS and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------