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

	

		

		



		




		

	 
	!
	


"#$%
	

 




			 
	 

	

	
 	

 
	


		

			&
			






			
				

 
	

	

  

&
		'
	$

	



"
(

) 
		
		
	

		

			

* 

&	
	
	

	 


	


	
	

+ 

	 


	
	



	
			)!	

	

*!
	
	,	+!	
!
 

	

	
	

 

		

	

*--*	
	

United States Office of Water EPA 823-F-03-007

Environmental Protection (4305) May 2003

Agency

	





Figure 1. Number of beaches in the 2002 beach survey.
Survey Participation

%
	

*.)	
	
	
	
	


	/0,
  	1*--*
2



*3-		4* 		!
+)/
5
'
	

6	7		8	7		

	


 92)!

	
	

	
)-*)	)44:
*;*+	*--*

6

 
		 	


		9*!

Beaches

	  		*--*
 

	

	
	

*;*+<*-+)
	:4*
			



Advisory and Closings





	 
	
	
	




 
		
=&		
 	


:-4
*;*+!
	





	*--*	
		
	
	
	



	



	:> 	

	!6







	

		
	9+!

Figure 2. Types of respondents participating in the

2002 beach survey.

Figure 3. Beach advisories or closings by duration.
%,
 
		
	
!
 

	





	7		
	,	
	
	


	
923! 
		

	
	

 

	





	

Trends

			)44:
= 	

	



*;--



	



	

	
			

	
	)!

Water Quality Standards

		
 
	
 
	



&		

	 
 		


	


	

6
	


	,
	= 

 
	

Table 1. Trends in agency participation, number of beaches, and advisories and

closings for 1997–2002.

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Number of agencies

participating in the survey 159 217 235 236 237 227

Number of beaches

reported 1,021 1,403 1,891 2,354 2,445 2,823

Number of beaches affected by

one or more advisories or closings 230 353 459 633 672 709

Percentage of beaches affected by

one or more advisories or closings 23 25 24 27 27 25

Figure 4. Sources of pollution that resulted in advisories and closings

Notes:

CSO: Combined Sewer

Overflow

SSO: Sanitary Sewer

Overflow

POTW: Publicly Owned

Treatment Works
"
		= 	
 
	
	


7	
	

?	

	@	


  	
 
	7	)4;.  



	&

	

		


		

 

	
	

	


 	 	
 
	
				


	


	

		 


	

	
	

 	
	

	

	
A

	
6		 	



	

	
 
 



	
	




	B



		
	 


	
		 		*

Monitoring

1
				
	
	
	
	


 
	
	
		


	4+

 	

 
&
	
	 



	
	&	
=
 	

	



	,

For More Information

 


*--*
	1"#$%

 (BB 

B	B 



	

	
		
	

/0,	

  	
C
	
	
	

	
	


 
	
			,

Table 2. Number of agencies, types of indicator organisms, and type of standard used

to determine swimming safety.

Notes: An agency can use multiple indicators.“Instantaneous standard” refers to a standard in which the density of the

indicator for any single sample must not be exceeded.“Sample average standard” refers to a standard that must not be

exceeded based on an average density calculated from samples taken over an established period of time (typically a

30-day period).

MARINE WATER

# of Programs Using

Sample

Indicator Instantaneous Average

Organisms Standard Standard

E. coli 4 5

Enterococci 82 90

Total coliforms 18 11

Fecal coliforms 55 43

FRESHWATER

# of Programs Using

Sample

Indicator Instantaneous Average

Organisms Standard Standard

E. coli 59 61

Enterococci 16 19

Total coliforms 17 23

Fecal coliforms 49 59
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOHN ROBERT ADAIR, DILJEET SINGH ATHWAL, 

and JOHN SPENCER EMTAGE,

Appellants, 

v. 

PAUL J. CARTER and LEONARD G. PRESTA, 

Appellees. 

____________________ 

2011-1378 

(Interference No. 105,762) 

_____________________

 

 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Board of Patent Appeals Interferences. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

DOREEN YATKO TRUJILLO, Cozen O’Connor, of 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for appellants. With 

her on the brief was KYLE VOS STRACHE. 

OLIVER R. ASHE, JR., ASHE, P.C., of Reston, Virginia, 

argued for appellees. Of counsel on the brief were 

JEFFREY P. KUSHAN and RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Sidley 

Austin, LLP, of Washington, DC. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LINN, PROST, and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 February 9, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
IV

House Calendar No. 74

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 237

[Report No. 107–205]

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 13, 2001

Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported

from the Committee on Rules.

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported on the legislative day of Friday, September 14,

6 2001, providing for consideration or disposition of a bill

7 making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal
2

HRES 237 RH

1 year 2001 for additional disaster assistance, for anti-ter2 rorism initiatives, for assistance in the recovery from the

3 tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001, and for

4 other purposes, any amendment thereto, any conference

5 report thereon, or any amendment reported in disagree6 ment from a conference thereon.

House Calendar No. 74

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 237

[Report No. 107–205]

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII

with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2001

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
§ 262.15 Environmental assessment. ( a ) The provision of grant funds by FRA under this Part is subject to a variety of environmental and historic preservation statutes and implementing regulations including, but not limited to, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332 *et seq.*), Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 303(c)), the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470(f)), and the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531). Appropriate environmental and historic documentation must be completed and approved by the Administrator prior to a decision by FRA to approve a project for physical construction. FRA's “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts,” as posted at *http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/252 ,* the NEPA regulation of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR part 1500) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Protection of Historic Properties regulation (36 CFR part 800) will govern FRA's compliance with applicable environmental and historic preservation review requirements.
( b ) States have two options for proceeding with environmental/historic preservation reviews. A State may file an application under subsection § 262.11 seeking funds for preliminary design and environmental/historic preservation compliance for a potentially eligible project and FRA will review and decide on the application as outlined in this Part. Alternatively, a State may proceed with and fund any costs associated with environmental/historic preservation reviews (including environmental assessments and categorical excisions, but not environmental impact statements since there are restrictions on what types of entities can manage an environmental impact statement) and seek reimbursement from FRA for these costs to the extent they otherwise qualify as allowable costs if FRA later approves the project for physical construction and enters into a grant agreement with the State. If a State pays for the compliance work itself, it may apply this cost to the 10% matching requirement if a grant is awarded. Applicants should consult with FRA before beginning any environmental or historic preservation analysis.
Sullivan,

June, 1894.

#### Patten *v.*Patten *& a.*

*JHosea W. Parker*and *Pra Colby,*for the plaintiff.

*George P. Brown,*for the defendants.

Assumpsit, for fees paid to fence-viewers and for services in building a fence. Pacts agreed. November 26, 1868, John S. Sanborn conveyed one acre, parcel of his farm, to Thomas Eastman, by a deed containing a clause as follows : “ The conditions of this deed are that the said Thomas Eastman, his heirs and assigns, shall build and forever keep in repair the line fence between said Thomas Eastman and the said John S. Sanborn on the land above described.” The title to the farm has come to the plaintiff and that of the acre to the defendants, in each case through several mesne conveyances, in none of which is the condition mentioned or referred to. The defendants deny that they are bound by the condition.

*Judgment for the plaintiff.*

All concurred.
I 

l 

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

AICI-Archirodon JV ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912ER-12-C-0033 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

ASBCA No. 60843 

Scott M. Heimberg, Esq. 

Maureen C. Hughes, Esq. 

Mark J. Groff, Esq. 

Elise A. Farrell, Esq. 

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 

Washington, DC 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

James D. Stephens, Esq. 

Rebecca L. Bockmann, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East 

Winchester, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The appeal has been settled. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board's 

docket with prejudice. 

Dated: February 20, 2020 

TERRENCE S. HARTMAN 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I

. 

' 

I 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60843, Appeal of AICI-Archirodon 

JV, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CURT LOCKETT

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3626

[ April 12, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502008CF001348A

.

Curt Lockett, Sneads, pro se.

No response required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, T AYLOR and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# CENTCOM counterterrorism strikes in Yemen 2018 rollup

/ Published Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Release Number 20190107-01

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CENTCOM counterterrorism strikes in Yemen 2018 rollup

**TAMPA, Fla.** - U.S. Central Command conducted 36 total air strikes in Yemen

in 2018, targeting al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS-Yemen. 

CENTCOM conducted 10 air strikes in January targeting both AQAP and

ISIS-Yemen, six air strikes against AQAP in February, seven air strikes

against AQAP in March and four airstrikes against AQAP in April. 

CENTCOM conducted two air strikes in May, two air strikes in June, two air

strikes in July, one air strike in August, and two air strikes in September,

all targeting AQAP terrorists. 

No strikes were conducted in Yemen in October, November, and December.

The air strikes took place in Abyan, al Bayda, Hadramawt, Shabwah and Zamakh

governorates. 

-30-
H. Res. 37

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 13, 2001.

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he

is hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the

House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. Sanders.

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM: Mr. Sanders.

Attest:

Clerk.
§ 534.4 Successors and predecessors. For purposes of the fuel economy and fuel consumption programs, “manufacturer” includes “predecessors” and “successors” to the extent specified in this section. ( a ) Successors are responsible for any civil penalties that arise out of fuel economy and fuel consumption shortfalls incurred and not satisfied by predecessors.
( b ) If one manufacturer has become the successor of another manufacturer during a model year, all of the vehicles or engines produced by those manufacturers during the model year are treated as though they were manufactured by the same manufacturer. A manufacturer is considered to have become the successor of another manufacturer during a model year if it is the successor on September 30 of the corresponding calendar year and was not the successor for the preceding model year.
( c ) ( 1 ) For passenger automobiles and light trucks, fuel economy credits earned by a predecessor before or during model year 2007 may be used by a successor, subject to the availability of credits and the general three-year restriction on carrying credits forward and the general three-year restriction on carrying credits backward. Fuel economy credits earned by a predecessor after model year 2007 may be used by a successor, subject to the availability of credits and the general five-year restriction on carrying credits forward and the general three-year restriction on carrying credits backward.
( 2 ) For heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicle engines, available fuel consumption credits earned by a predecessor after model year 2015, and in model years 2013, 2014 and 2015 if a manufacturer voluntarily complies in those model years, may be used by a successor, subject to the availability of credits and the general five-year restriction on carrying credits forward and the general three year restriction on carrying credits backward.
( d ) ( 1 ) For passenger automobiles and light trucks, fuel economy credits earned by a successor before or during model year 2007 may be used to offset a predecessor's shortfall, subject to the availability of credits and the general three-year restriction on carrying credits forward and the general three-year restriction on carrying credits backward. Credits earned by a successor after model year 2007 may be used to offset a predecessor's shortfall, subject to the availability of credits and the general five-year restriction on carrying credits forward and the general three-year restriction on carrying credits backward.
( 2 ) For heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicle engines, available credits earned by a successor after model year 2015, and in model years 2013, 2014 and 2015, if a manufacturer voluntarily complies in those model years, may be used by a predecessor subject to the availability of credits and the general five-year restriction on carrying credits forward and the general three year restriction on carrying credits backward.
[76 FR 57492, Sept. 15, 2011]
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual reportto Congress [electronic resource] : a report by the Council of the StrategicEnvironmental Research and Development Program.**** 
SuDocNumber:D1.97/2:
ItemNumber:0434-B-02(online)
CGPsystem Number:000588283
 
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
 **
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0583.html[7/20/2015 9:36:28 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-z27o

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-0583

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Steve Shircliff

General Comment

Leave my 401K alone.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 322 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     December 20, 2001.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House a joint resolution appointing the day for the convening of 
the second session of the One Hundred Seventh Congress. The joint resolution 
shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees; and (2) one 
motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 572

#### Editorial Notes:

1. For compliance provisions relating to a vehicle's conformance with the performance requirements of Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) relating to the part 572 test dummy, see the “Effective Date Note” at subpart E of this part.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 572 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 572.141 General description.

(a) The Hybrid III 3-year-old child dummy is described by the following materials:

(1) Technical drawings and specifications package 210-0000 (refer to § 572.140(a)(1)), the titles of which are listed in Table A of this section;

(2) Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection document (PADI) (refer to § 572.140(a)(2)).

(b) The dummy is made up of the component assemblies set out in the following Table A of this section:

| Component assembly | Drawing No. |
| --- | --- |
| Head Assembly | 210-1000 |
| Neck Assembly (complete) | 210-2001 |
| Upper/Lower Torso Assembly | 210-3000 |
| Leg Assembly | 210-5000-1(L), -2(R) |
| Arm Assembly | 210-6000-1(L), -2(R) |

Table A

(c) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner such that except for contacts existing under static conditions, there is no contact between metallic elements throughout the range of motion or under simulated crash impact conditions.

(d) The structural properties of the dummy are such that the dummy conforms to this part in every respect only before use in any test similar to those specified in Standard 208, *Occupant Crash Protection,* and Standard 213, *Child Restraint Systems.*
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 7:10 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

Dear Mr. Perez,

Brokerage houses owe a fiduciary duty to their customers/clients. AND those in the Csuite and their general counsel should be personally accountable.

My expectation was that Morgan Stanley would put me, its customer/client, ahead of its 

selfish interests. I realize now that Morgan Stanley is all about Morgan Stanley and 

could give a rats rear end about me.

Morgan Stanley asserts its own internal rules trump a court order that directs how one 

of my accounts should be split (by %). I have complied with all requirements of the 

court order and associated IRS rules. I find Morgan Stanley's action in refusing to allow 

me to carry out the court order reprehensible and financially draining. The account is 

frozen and Morgan Stanley can collect 12(b) fees even though I cannot deposit or take 

funds from the account. Almost six years have passed and the court order from 

October 2009 is still not satisfied. And if that were not enough, another person - a 

federal employee - who was to receive a % of the account is now suing me (again) 

because the account has not been split per the court order of October 2009.

Had Morgan Stanley allowed me to carry out the court order, the account would have 

been split, and I would have been spared attorney fees.. Morgan Stanley knows its 

actions are causing me to incur attorney fees to defend myself in a frivolous court 

action.

Morgan Stanley hides behind some direction of an unnamed person in their legal 

department. I have asked for a conference call to no avail.

I consider Morgan Stanley to have materially breached of any sense of morality and 

consistently breached fiduciary obligations to me as its customer and client. It's 

obscene.

So, I am writing to you in exercise of my First Amendment rights to petition my 

government for redress.

K.C.
Editorial Note on Part 386
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 386 appear at 65 FR 7755, Feb. 16, 2000, and 88 FR 80182, Nov. 17, 2023.

§ 386.45 Motion to compel discovery. ( a ) If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or a party upon whom a request is made pursuant to §§ 386.42 through 386.44, or a party upon whom interrogatories are served fails to respond adequately or objects to the request, or any part thereof, or fails to permit inspection as requested, the discovering party may move the Agency Decisionmaker or the administrative law judge, if one has been appointed, for an order compelling a response or inspection in accordance with the request.
( b ) The motion shall set forth: ( 1 ) The nature of the questions or request;
( 2 ) The response or objections of the party upon whom the request was served; and
( 3 ) Arguments in support of the motion.
( c ) For purposes of this section, an evasive answer or incomplete answer or response shall be treated as a failure to answer or respond.
( d ) In ruling on a motion made pursuant to this section, the Agency Decisionmaker or the administrative law judge, if one has been appointed, may make and enter a protective order such as he or she is authorized to enter on a motion made pursuant to § 386.39(a).
#### Alberto de Verastegui, Respondent, *v.*Lucien Levy, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

Reported below, 143 App. Div. 949.

(Submitted May 15, 1911;

decided May 19, 1911.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 29, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mortgage.

The motion was made upon the ground that the exceptions were frivolous and presented no question for review.

*Allan C. Rowe*for motion.

*Louis Sachs*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.