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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 99

To prohibit discrimination in contracting on federally funded projects on

the basis of certain labor policies of potential contractors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To prohibit discrimination in contracting on federally funded

projects on the basis of certain labor policies of potential

contractors.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Open Competition and

5 Fairness Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 99 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF

2 CERTAIN LABOR RELATIONS POLICIES OF

3 OFFERORS ON FEDERALLY FUNDED CON4 TRACTS.

5 Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (29

6 U.S.C. 158(e)) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,

8 no person may be discriminated against when bidding on

9 a prime contract, funded in whole or in part with funds

10 provided by the Federal Government, if such discrimina11 tion is based in whole or in part on a requirement that

12 such person enter into or adhere to a collective bargaining

13 agreement or any similar agreement as a condition of per14 forming work under the contract.’’.

15 SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION.

16 The amendment made by section 2 shall not be

17 construed—

18 (1) to apply to subcontractors; or

19 (2)(A) to prohibit a contractor from voluntarily

20 entering into a lawful agreement with a labor orga21 nization; or

22 (B) to discourage contractors who have entered

23 into such an agreement from bidding on Federal or

24 federally assisted contracts.
3

•HR 99 IH

1 SEC. 4. APPLICATION.

2 The amendment made by section 2 shall apply to con3 tracts made directly with any agency of the Federal

4 Government and to contracts made with any entity that

5 is managing or operating a facility owned or controlled

6 by the Federal Government on behalf of the Federal Gov7 ernment.

Æ
# AVS

Quality Management System Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with No S8 QPM# AIR-ANM-Q30-F6 Date: December 17,2008 Revision 

### 1 

# Record ofContacts 

# V>ID-

# 00-:;7 FDMS Docket No. FAA";<OO - _ With whom outside the FAAhas this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, Ri\i\, 

### ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Person Contacted Date 

### PATS (DeCrane Aerospace) Wayne Shade 

### .JII lie - 

### 2009

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check the Master list to Verify ThaI This isthe Correct Revision Before Use
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.208 What problems require corrective action but do not result in the cancellation of a test? ( a ) If, as a laboratory, collector, employer, or other person implementing the DOT drug testing program, you become aware that any of the following omissions listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section occurred, you must take corrective action, including securing a memorandum for the record explaining the problem and taking appropriate action to ensure the problem does not recur: ( 1 ) For a urine collection, the specimen temperature on the CCF was not checked and the “Remarks” line did not contain an entry regarding the temperature being out of range; or
( 2 ) For an oral fluid collection, the collector failed to check the box in Step 2 of the CCF that indicates “Each Device was Within Expiration Date” but the collector entered the “Split Specimen Device Expiration Date” in Step 4 of the CCF.
( 3 ) For an oral fluid collection, the collector erred by entering the expiration date as the “Primary/Single Specimen Device Expiration Date” instead of entering the date as the “Split Specimen Device Expiration Date” in Step 4 of the CCF.
( b ) The errors listed in paragraph (a) of this section do not result in the cancellation of the test.
( c ) As an employer or service agent, the errors listed in paragraph (a) of this section, even though not sufficient to cancel a drug test result, may subject you to enforcement action under DOT agency regulations or subpart R of this part.
[88 FR 27649, May 2, 2023]
|  | Cooling Water Intake Structures - CWA §316(b)             Recent                     Additions | Contact                     Us |                     Print                     Version                     Search:                     EPA                     Home > Water                     > Water Science > Industrial                     Water Pollution Controls > Cooling                     Water Intake Structures 316(b) > Phase                     II > Case Study |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

||
||
###### Editorial Note on Part 387

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 387 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 387.305 Combination vehicles.

The following combinations will be regarded as one motor vehicle for purposes of this part, (a) a tractor and trailer or semitrailer when the tractor is engaged solely in drawing the trailer or semitrailer, and (b) a truck and trailer when both together bear a single load.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 19, 2019

No. 04-19-00197-CR

Addie James BATTEN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-2121-CR-C

Honorable Dwight E. Peschel, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on October 11, 2019. The appellant’s 

first motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to

November 12, 2019, 2010. On November 18, 2019, the appellant filed a motion requesting an 

additional extension of time to file the brief until December 9, 2019, for a total extension of 

almost sixty days. The motion is GRANTED. THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF 

TIME THAT THE APPELLANT WILL BE GRANTED. The appellant’s brief must be filed 

by December 9, 2019, or this appeal will be abated to the trial court for an abandonment hearing. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b).

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of November, 2019.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
#### § 299.339 Daily sweeper inspection.

A sweeper vehicle shall be operated each morning after the overnight maintenance over all tracks except track Class H2 in stations, prior to commencing revenue service over that track. The sweeper vehicle shall operate at a speed no greater than 120 km/h (75 mph) to conduct a visual inspection to ensure the right-of-way is clear of obstacles within the clearance envelope and to identify conditions that could cause accidents, and shall have a minimum clearance of no less than 35 mm above top of rail.
From: Yanca, Catherine

To: Yanca, Catherine

Subject: Part 2 of Follow-up to 3/12 Tier 3 call

Date: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:19:24 PM

Attachments: Follow up to 3_12 Tier 3 call.docx

Follow up to 3_12 Tier 3 call part 2.docx

From: Sargeant, Kathryn

Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:45 PM

To: Amanda_I._Lee@omb.eop.gov ; Whiteman, Chad

Cc: Charmley, William; Stewart, Lori; Ghanta, Venu; Nickerson, William; Jutras, Nathaniel; Nagelhout,

Peter; Brunner, Christine

Subject: Part 2 of Follow-up to 3/12 Tier 3 call

I’m attaching the rest of EPA’s edits in response to our phone call of 3/12. These address the

criteria pollutant impacts of the LD GHG rule and the fuel economy impacts of the Tier 3 vehicle

standards.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

From: Sargeant, Kathryn

Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:34 PM

To: Whiteman, Chad; Amanda_I._Lee@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Charmley, William; Stewart, Lori; Ghanta, Venu; Nickerson, William; Jutras, Nathaniel; Nagelhout,

Peter; Brunner, Christine

Subject: Follow-up to 3/12 Tier 3 call

At our phone call on 3/12 we agreed to make a few changes to the preamble.

I’m attaching some preamble excerpts that show you our suggested changes. These address the

issues of rate of return on investment for refinery investments, and some further explanation of

our refinery CO2 analysis.

Please let me know if you have any questions.
[Civ. No. 1193.

First Appellate District.

March 5, 1913.]

#### EDWIN FORREST, Appellant, v. E. J. KNOX et al., Respondents.

Judgment by Default—Motion to Vacate—Affidavit of Merits—An affidavit of merits, .on motion to open a default judgment, which recites that' “I have fully and fairly stated -the case of the defendants,” etc., instead of the facts of the ease, is insufficient.

Id.—Absence of Notice of Filing Affidavit.—An affidavit in support of a motion to open a default judgment, filed by permission of court after the submission of the motion, but without notice to the plaintiff and not referred to in the notice of motion, cannot be considered.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco vacating a default judgment. Jas. M. Troutt, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of' the court.

Fred L. Dreher, for Appellant.

Denson, Cooley & Denson, for Respondents.

HALL, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order made by the court granting a motion of defendants to vacate and set aside a default judgment regularly entered against defendants after personal service of summons. The appeal comes to this court upon a bill of exceptions duly settled, but though appellant filed his points and authorities July 9, *3641912, respondents have filed no reply thereto, and made no appearance in this court at the calling of the case on the last calendar (January, 1913).

The order cannot he sustained but must be reversed. The notice of motion stated that it would be made upon the affidavit of E. J. Knox, one of the defendants, and the records and papers in the action. The Knox affidavit sets out facts upon which is predicated a claim of excusable neglect and inadvertence. This affidavit and the other papers in the action were read upon the hearing of the motion, and the same was thereupon submitted. The affidavit of said Knox was wholly insufficient as an affidavit of merits in that it stated that ■“! have fully and fairly stated *the case of the defendants*in this action,” etc., instead of the *facts of the case. (Morgan*v. *McDonald,*70 Cal. 32, [11 Pac. 350] ; *Cooper-Power*v. *Hanlon,*7 Cal. App. 724, [95 Pac. *678]; Jensen*v. *Dorr,*9 Cal. App. 18, [98 Pac. 45].)

After the submission of the motion defendants, without notice to plaintiff and without his knowledge, obtained permission from the court to file the affidavit of Antón Dos Reis in support of said motion. No notice of the filing of said last mentioned affidavit was given to plaintiff or his attorney until after the granting of the motion, and said affidavit was in no way referred to in the notice of the motion. Under these circumstances the affidavit of said Dos Reis cannot be considered in support of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1010.)

The order vacating and setting aside the judgment and default is reversed.

Lennon, P. J., and Murphey, J., *pro tem.,*concurred.
Exhibit 32-2



Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code



The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the Report on Form 10-K of Exelon Corporation for the year ended December 31,
2007, that (i) the report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Exelon Corporation.



|                       |  |  |  |                                                                       
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 7, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    MATTHEW F.
HILZINGER                                           
|                       |  |  |  | Matthew F. Hilzinger Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                       |  |  |  |                                                                       



443
# 2019

# 2018

# 2017

# 2016

# 2015

# 2014

# 2013

# 2012

# 2011

# 2010

# 2009

# 2008

# 2007

# 2006

# 2005

# 2004

# 2003

# 2002

# 2001

# 2000

# 1999

# 1998

# 1997

# 1996

# 1995

# 1994

# 1993

# 1992
#### Austin J. Slade, Respondent, v. Barbara A. Cherry, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.;

Lanclon, J., dissenting.
Editorial Note on Part 385
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 385 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 385.15 Administrative review. ( a ) A motor carrier may request FMCSA to conduct an administrative review if it believes FMCSA has committed an error in assigning its proposed or final safety rating in accordance with § 385.11.
( b ) The motor carrier's request must explain the error it believes the FMCSA committed in issuing the safety rating. The motor carrier must include a list of all factual and procedural issues in dispute, and any information or documents that support its argument.
( c ) The motor carrier must submit its request in writing to the Assistant Administrator, ATTN: Adjudications Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. ( 1 ) If a motor carrier has received a notice of a proposed “unsatisfactory” safety rating, it should submit its request within 15 days from the date of the notice. This time frame will allow the FMCSA to issue a written decision before the prohibitions outlined in § 385.13 (a)(1) and (2) take effect. Failure to petition within this 15-day period may prevent the FMCSA from issuing a final decision before such prohibitions take effect.
( 2 ) A motor carrier must make a request for an administrative review within 90 days of the date of the proposed safety rating issued under § 385.11 (c) or a final safety rating issued under § 385.11 (b), or within 90 days after denial of a request for a change in rating under § 385.17(i).
( d ) The FMCSA may ask the motor carrier to submit additional data and attend a conference to discuss the safety rating. If the motor carrier does not provide the information requested, or does not attend the conference, the FMCSA may dismiss its request for review.
( e ) The FMCSA will notify the motor carrier in writing of its decision following the administrative review. The FMCSA will complete its review: ( 1 ) Within 30 days after receiving a request from a hazardous materials or passenger motor carrier that has received a proposed or final “unsatisfactory” safety rating.
( 2 ) Within 45 days after receiving a request from any other motor carrier that has received a proposed or final “unsatisfactory” safety rating.
( f ) The decision constitutes final agency action.
( g ) Any motor carrier may request a rating change under the provisions of § 385.17.
[65 FR 50935, Aug. 22, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 55701, Oct. 1, 2007; 75 FR 17241, Apr. 5, 2010; 77 FR 28450, 28454, May 14, 2012; 86 FR 57070, Oct. 14, 2021]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1152.html[7/22/2015 2:41:32 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvd-m9nr

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-1152

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Tami Volk

Address:

2172 Middleton Drive

Navarre, FL, 32566

General Comment

I can plan my own retirement. Stay out of directing and limiting me.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 224 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 224

  Honoring the New Jersey State Law Enforcement Officers Association.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2001

Mr. Ferguson (for himself, Mr. Saxton, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Frelinghuysen, 
   Mr. Holt, Mr. Payne, Mr. Andrews, and Mr. LoBiondo) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Honoring the New Jersey State Law Enforcement Officers Association.

Whereas more than 700,000 men and women across the Nation serve their fellow 
        citizens in their capacity as guardians of peace;
Whereas the law enforcement officers of New Jersey are recognized for their 
        dedication to promote, advance, and encourage cooperation among all law 
        enforcement officers;
Whereas law enforcement officers serve at great risk to their personal safety;
Whereas the citizens of New Jersey are indebted to their law enforcement 
        officers, who are willing to die to protect them and their families and 
        to risk all of their hopes and all of their dreams to ensure the safety 
        and well-being of New Jersey communities;
Whereas law enforcement officers of New Jersey have fallen in the line of duty, 
        and the thoughts and prayers of the House of Representatives and the 
        country remain with the families of these men and women;
Whereas the men and women in New Jersey's law enforcement community are on the 
        front line in our schools and on our streets, preserving the right of 
        our children to learn in schools that are free of violence and the right 
        of our citizens to safe communities; and
Whereas the members of the New Jersey State Law Enforcement Officers Association 
        are an integral part of our society, in whom we have instilled public 
        trust: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes the bravery 
and honor of the law enforcement officers of New Jersey, and the 
service of those officers to their communities.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6558

GARY L. BUTTS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-97-577-5-12JI) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary L. Butts, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gary L. Butts seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Butts v. South Carolina , No. CA-97-577-5- 12JI (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, William C. Niegsch, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Max & Erma’s Restaurants,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: March 27, 2008                                                   /s/ William C. Niegsch, Jr.   William C. Niegsch, Jr.,   Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of Max & Erma’s Restaurants, Inc.  
25