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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 330 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      January 23, 2002.
Whereas the future course of the United States depends on its children and 
        youth;
Whereas educated, confident, and nurtured children will make our Nation 
        stronger;
Whereas research has shown that mentoring measurably affects young people by 
        increasing school attendance, improving rates of secondary school 
        graduation and college attendance, decreasing involvement with drugs and 
        alcohol, and decreasing violent behavior;
Whereas considerable numbers of our Nation's children face difficult 
        circumstances: 1 out of 4 children lives with only 1 parent; 1 out of 10 
        children is born to teenaged parents; 1 out of 5 children lives in 
        poverty; and 1 out of 10 children will not finish secondary school;
Whereas mentoring is a proven, effective strategy to combat such circumstances 
        by matching a caring, responsible adult with a child to provide 
        guidance, stability, and direction to the child and to build the child's 
        confidence;
Whereas it is estimated that more than 16,000,000 children in the United States 
        need or want a mentor but mentoring programs nationwide serve at most 
        750,000 of such children;
Whereas a coalition of mentoring organizations have designated January as 
        National Mentoring Month;
Whereas the establishment of a National Mentoring Month would emphasize the 
        importance of mentoring and recognize with praise and gratitude the many 
        individuals in the United States who are involved with mentoring; and
Whereas the establishment of a National Mentoring Month would encourage more 
        individuals to volunteer as mentors, to the benefit of our Nation's 
        children: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
mentoring relationships can benefit America's youth and result in 
improved school attendance and academic achievement.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.209 What procedural problems do not result in the cancellation of a test and do not require correction? ( a ) As a collector, laboratory, MRO, employer or other person administering the drug testing process, you must document any errors in the testing process of which you become aware, even if they are not considered problems that will cause a test to be cancelled as listed in this subpart. Decisions about the ultimate impact of these errors will be determined by other administrative or legal proceedings, subject to the limitations of paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) No person concerned with the testing process may declare a test cancelled based on an error that does not have a significant adverse effect on the right of the employee to have a fair and accurate test. Matters that do not result in the cancellation of a test include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) A minor administrative mistake (*e.g.,* the omission of the employee's middle initial, a transposition of numbers in the employee's SSN or Employee ID No., the omission of the DOT Agency in Step 1-D of the CCF.)
( 2 ) An error that does not affect employee protections under this part (*e.g.,* the collector's failure to add bluing agent to the toilet bowl, which adversely affects only the ability of the collector to detect tampering with the specimen by the employee);
( 3 ) The collection of a specimen by a collector who is required to have been trained (*see* § 40.33 or 40.35), but who has not met this requirement;
( 4 ) A delay in the collection process (see § 40.61(a));
( 5 ) Verification of a test result by an MRO who has the basic credentials to be qualified as an MRO (see § 40.121(a) through (b)) but who has not met training and/or documentation requirements (see § 40.121(c) through (e));
( 6 ) The failure to directly observe or monitor a collection that the rule requires or permits to be directly observed or monitored, or the unauthorized use of direct observation or monitoring for a collection;
( 7 ) The fact that a test was conducted in a facility that does not meet the requirements of § 40.42;
( 8 ) If the specific name of the courier on the CCF is omitted or erroneous;
( 9 ) Personal identifying information is inadvertently contained on the CCF (*e.g.,* the employee signs his or her name on Copy 1); or
( 10 ) Claims that the employee was improperly selected for testing.
( 11 ) The failure to use a new CCF for a second collection after an insufficient specimen was conducted under a different methodology (*e.g.,* failing to use a new CCF for an oral fluid test after an insufficient quantity of urine was produced on a urine test.)
( c ) As an employer or service agent, these types of errors, even though not sufficient to cancel a drug test result, may subject you to enforcement action under DOT agency regulations or action under Subpart R of this part.
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 41954, Aug. 9, 2001; 75 FR 59108, Sept. 27, 2010; 88 FR 27649, May 2, 2023]
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 256 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 10, 2001.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill 
(H.R. 1992) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to expand the 
opportunities for higher education via telecommunications. The bill shall be 
considered as read for amendment. The amendment recommended by the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce; (2) the further amendment printed 
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
by Representative Mink of Hawaii or her designee, which shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and 
shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### § 71.4 Eastern zone.

The second zone, the eastern standard time zone, includes that part of the United States that is west of 67°30′′ W. longitude and east of the boundary line described in § 71.5, and includes all of the State of Maine, but does not include any part of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4122 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NATHANIEL GREEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CR-04-677)

Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 5, 2005

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Green, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Hechtkopf, John Hinton,

III, M. Kendall Day, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Green argues: (1) that he removed any “presumption of power

of attorney that the United States government” had on him; (2) that

he declared that he is of the Washitaw Muurs nationality, rather

than a U.S. citizen; (3) that he revoked all signatures and powers

of attorney of previously filed W-4 forms and state and local tax

forms; (4) that he emancipated himself from his government-issued

birth certificate in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code;

and (5) that the government’s use of his name violates a copyright

as the name is a trade name under the Uniform Commercial Code.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Green appeals his conviction for several counts

of filing false tax documents, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)

(2000), aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax

documents, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (2000), and

obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (2000).

Green was sentenced to thirty-six months of imprisonment, to be

followed by three years of supervised release. 

Green, representing himself on appeal as he did below,

raises several challenges to his conviction. Because these

arguments are baseless,*

 we deny Green’s motion for transcript at

government expense and affirm Green’s conviction. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 595.3 Applicability.

This part applies to dealers, motor vehicle repair businesses, and rental companies.

[87 FR 14418, Mar. 15, 2022]
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Andrew Touchstone, c/o Teri :

Touchstone, :

Petitioners :

:

v. : No. 1336 C.D. 2018

:

Workers' Compensation Appeal :

Board (Touchstone and Associates, :

P.C.), :

Respondent :

O R D E R

NOW, September 23, 2019

, upon consideration of P etitioner’s

application for re consideration /reargument

, and R espondent’s answer in

response thereto, the application is denied.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

President Judge
Nov. 17: Military Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq
 By U.S. Central Command News Release
  November 17, 2014
RELEASE #20141112 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **TAMPA, Fla., Nov. 17, 2014** — U.S military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria Nov. 14-17 using fighter and bomber aircraft to conduct eleven airstrikes.  Separately, U.S. and partner nation military forces conducted 20 airstrikes in Iraq Nov. 14-17 using attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists. In Syria, nine airstrikes near Kobani destroyed seven ISIL fighting positions, suppressed another ISIL fighting position, destroyed four ISIL staging areas, and struck one tactical ISIL unit.  Two airstrikes near Dayr Az Zawr struck an ISIL crude oil collection facility and destroyed one ISIL tank. In Iraq, four airstrikes near Ar Rutbah destroyed nine ISIL trucks, two ISIL excavators and one ISIL front-loader, and damaged one ISIL vehicle.  Three airstrikes near Fallujah destroyed two ISIL vehicles, one ISIL bulldozer and one ISIL front-loader. One airstrike southwest of Mosul Dam destroyed one ISIL bulldozer and struck one tactical ISIL unit. Two airstrikes west of Mosul struck two ISIL tactical units and destroyed one ISIL vehicle and an ISIL fighting position. Three airstrikes near Kirkuk struck one tactical ISIL unit, and damaged one ISIL tank and destroyed another.  One airstrike southwest of Al Qaim destroyed one ISIL vehicle.  One airstrike in Tel Afar struck one tactical ISIL unit.  Five airstrikes near Bayji struck two tactical ISIL units and one large ISIL unit and destroyed one ISIL tank, one ISIL vehicle, and four ISIL fighting positions. All aircraft returned to base safely.  Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. The strikes were conducted as part of Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the terrorist group ISIL and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community.  The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project power and conduct operations.  Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the U.S., Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.  Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the U.S., Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from
Sterling Gas Drilling Fund 1982's first quarter 1997 10Q and is qualified
in its entirety to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               9
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     9
<PP&E>                                      12,429,197
<DEPRECIATION>                             (11,681,608)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 747,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          351,609
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     395,989<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   747,598
<SALES>                                         96,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,273
<CGS>                                           81,715
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,715
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,558
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Other-se includes total partners' equity.
<F2>The limited partnerhsip income was divided by the total number of
limited partnership units of 14,370.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                 Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                       546,836
<SECURITIES>                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                0
<ALLOWANCES>                 0
<INVENTORY>                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             550,754
<PP&E>                       3,494,679
<DEPRECIATION>               1,915,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               6,657,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        150,291
<BONDS>                      0
<COMMON>                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        0
<PREFERRED>                  0
<OTHER-SE>                   6,507,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 6,657,399
<SALES>                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             80,987
<CGS>                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                65,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             92,952
<LOSS-PROVISION>             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (96,333)
<INCOME-TAX>                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (96,333)
<DISCONTINUED>               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>              0
<CHANGES>                    0
<NET-INCOME>                 (96,333)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                (2.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                0
        

</TABLE>
1210-AB32-2-1446.html[7/26/2015 5:14:40 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwd-78o3

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-1942

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Kim Meyer

Address:

12084 N Copper Spring Trl

Oro Valley, AZ, 85755

Email: kim.meyer@sprint.com

Phone: 5205445543

General Comment

Let freedom work. Freedom is choices. Let me make my own choices.

Ive spent my life working towards my retirement. A government bureaucrat should not get in the way of that. Im

 smart enough to plan for my own retirement!
A01A0553.

#### HYMAN v. THE STATE.

(546 SE2d 881)

Blackburn, Chief Judge.

Algernon Hyman contends that his resentencing for the crime of making a false statement was harsher than his original sentence and presumptively vindictive in violation of *North Carolina v. Pearce.*
      *1*
      **For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Following a jury trial, Hyman was convicted of making a false statement and felony murder on May 4, 1999. The trial court then merged the two counts and sentenced Hyman to life imprisonment. Our Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari on Hyman’s case, affirmed his conviction for making a false statement, and reversed his conviction for felony murder. As a result of this reversal, the trial court resentenced Hyman to five years of imprisonment for making a false statement and ordered that this sentence would be served consecutively to an earlier sentence imposed upon Hyman for another prior crime. Hyman contends that the second sentence violated the standard set forth in *Pearce.*

> *Pearce*promotes the idea that vindictiveness against a defendant for successfully attacking his first conviction must play no part in his resentencing, so an increased sentence on resentencing raises a presumption of vindictiveness. This so-called presumption of vindictiveness, however, refers to resentencing which actually penalizes a defendant for appealing his sentence. . . . The reason a factual basis for increased sentencing is required is to allow the constitutional legitimacy of an enhanced sentence to be assessed on appeal.

(Citations omitted.) *Duffey v. State.*
      *2*

The initial inquiry in this analysis, therefore, must be a determi*522nation of whether the defendant actually received an increased sentence for the same crime on resentencing. Here, Hyman was initially sentenced for felony murder, into which the crime of making a false statement was merged. No separate sentence was imposed for making a false statement at that time. Subsequently, after our Supreme Court reversed the felony murder conviction, Hyman was sentenced for the separate and distinct crime of making a false statement *for the first time.*As such, we do not have two separate sentences for the crime of making a false statement to compare, and *Pearce*is simply not applicable to the facts of this case.

Decided March 8, 2001.

*L. Clark Landrum,*for appellant.

*C. Paul Bowden, District Attorney, Bradford L. Rigby, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Accordingly, Hyman’s appeal based on the holding of *Pearce*is meritless, and his sentence is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope, P. J., and Mikell, J., concur.*

*North Carolina v. Pearce,*395 U. S. 711 (89 SC 2072, 23 LE2d 656) (1969).

*Duffey v. State,*222 Ga. App. 802, 804 (3) (476 SE2d 89) (1996).
§ 585.95 Response to inquiries. ( a ) *Production year ending August 31, 2010.* At any time during the production year, each manufacturer must, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as complying with § 571.202a without regard to any option to comply with the standard in § 571.202 or with the European regulations referenced in S4.3(a) of § 571.202.
( b ) *Production year ending August 31, 2011.* At any time during the production year, each manufacturer must, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as complying with the requirements specified in § 571.202a for rear head restraints.
§ 604.10 Agreement with registered charter providers. ( a ) A recipient may provide charter service directly to a customer consistent with an agreement entered into with all registered charter providers in the recipient's geographic service area.
( b ) If a new charter provider registers in the geographic service area subsequent to the initial agreement, the recipient may continue to provide charter service under the previous agreement with the other charter providers up to 90 days without an agreement with the newly registered charter provider.
( c ) Any of the parties to an agreement may cancel the agreement at any time after providing the recipient a 90-day notice.
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.

§ 572.136 Knees and knee impact test procedure. ( a ) *Knee assembly.* The knee assembly (refer to §§ 572.130(a)(1)(v) and (vi)) for the purpose of this test is the part of the leg assembly shown in drawing 880105-560.
( b ) ( 1 ) When the knee assembly, consisting of sliding knee assembly (drawing 880105-528R or -528L), lower leg structural replacement (drawing 880105-603), lower leg flesh (drawing 880105-601), ankle assembly (drawing 880105-660), foot assembly (drawing 880105-651 or 650), and femur load transducer (drawing SA572-S14) or its structural replacement (drawing 78051-319) is tested according to the test procedure in subsection (c), the peak resistance force as measured with the test probe-mounted accelerometer must be not less than 3450 N (776 lbf) and not more than 4060 N (913 lbf).
( 2 ) The force shall be calculated by the product of the impactor mass and its deceleration.
( c ) *Test procedure.* The test procedure for the knee assembly is as follows: ( 1 ) Soak the knee assembly in a controlled environment at any temperature between 18.9 and 25.6 °C (66 and 78 °F) and a relative humidity from 10 to 70 percent for at least four hours prior to a test.
( 2 ) Mount the test material and secure it to a rigid test fixture as shown in Figure O5. No part of the foot or tibia may contact any exterior surface.
( 3 ) Align the test probe so that throughout its stroke and at contact with the knee it is within 2 degrees of horizontal and collinear with the longitudinal centerline of the femur.
( 4 ) Guide the pendulum so that there is no significant lateral vertical or rotational movement at the time of initial contact between the impactor and the knee.
( 5 ) The test probe velocity at the time of contact shall be 2.1 ±0.03 m/s (6.9 ±0.1 ft/s).
( 6 ) No suspension hardware, suspension cables, or any other attachments to the probe, including the velocity vane, shall make contact with the dummy during the test.
[65 FR 10968, Mar. 1, 2000, as amended at 67 FR 46415, July 15, 2002]