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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 92 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                   House Calendar No. 8
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 92

                          [Report No. 107-23]

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2001

Ms. Pryce of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

    Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the legislative 
day of Wednesday, March 21, 2001, or Thursday, March 22, 2001, for the 
Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating 
to the following measures:
            (1) The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 43) authorizing 
        the printing of a revised and updated version of the House 
        document entitled ``Black Americans in Congress, 1870-1989''.
            (2) The bill (H.R. 1042) to prevent the elimination of 
        certain reports.
            (3) The bill (H.R. 1098) to improve the recording and 
        discharging of maritime liens and expand the American Merchant 
        Marine Memorial Wall of Honor, and for other purposes.
            (4) The bill (H.R. 1099) to make changes in laws governing 
        Coast Guard personnel, increase marine safety, renew certain 
        groups that advise the Coast Guard on safety issues, make 
        miscellaneous improvements to Coast Guard operations and 
        policies, and for other purposes.
            (5) The bill (H.R. 496) to amend the Communications Act of 
        1934 to promote deployment of advanced services and foster the 
        development of competition for the benefit of consumers in all 
        regions of the Nation by relieving unnecessary burdens on the 
        Nation's two percent local exchange telecommunications 
        carriers, and for other purposes.
            (6) The bill (H.R. 802) to authorize the Public Safety 
        Officer Medal of Valor, and for other purposes.

                                                   House Calendar No. 8

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. RES. 92

                          [Report No. 107-23]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 20, 2001

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
BryanW. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman Buddy Garcia, Commissioner Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner Mark R. Vickery, P.G., ExecutiveDirector TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protecting Texas byReducingandPreventingPollution June 24, 2011
Mr. Lawrence StarfieId RegionalAdministrator U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 RE: Implementation ofS. B. 12 (2007)
Dear Mr. Starfield:
I am writing in response to your May 19, 2011 letter regarding implementation ofS.B. 12 (2007) as itrelates to the Texas TitleVpermittingprogram. You have requested that Texas provide a supplemental Attorney General statement and other information demonstrating the state possesses adequate authority to meet the enforcement requirements ofthe Title V program as stated in 40 C.F.R. Part 70. TCEQ staffis working with our Attorney General's office to respond to your request. My compliance and enforcement, air permits, and legal services offices are also preparing information in response to the May 19 letter's request. While my staff and the Attorney General's office are working diligently to provide the supplementation statement and information you have requested, it is not possible to submit this to youbyJuly 1,2011. We will make every effort to provide the information you have requested in as timely a manner as possible. I have asked my legal staffto keep your office appraised ofour progress. Ifyou or your staffhas any questions, please contactTerry Salem at (512) 239-0469 or John Minter at (512) 239-0663. Sincerely,

Mark R. Vickery, P.G. Executive Director

P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512-239-1000 Internetaddress: wwvv.tceq.state.tx.us
#### Patrick Collins, Respondent, v. J. A. Jones, Appellant.

Motion for reargument or for leave to go to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
      THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME OF JOURNAL  REGISTER  COMPANY FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED MARCH 26, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                 DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-26-2000
<CASH>                               2,561
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                       66,413
<ALLOWANCES>                         5,457
<INVENTORY>                          9,669
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    82,852
<PP&E>                             248,275
<DEPRECIATION>                     144,737
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     678,229
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               75,203
<BONDS>                            725,560
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                               484
<OTHER-SE>                        (210,319)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       678,229
<SALES>                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   113,207
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       66,188
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     7,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       926
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  13,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     14,607
<INCOME-TAX>                         5,770
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  8,472
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                         8,472
<EPS-BASIC>                           0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.19



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                        [LETTERHEAD OF FAHN, KANNE & CO.]

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
              ---------------------------------------------------
     
As independent certified public accountants of Red Sea Marineland Holding (1973)
Ltd., we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report included in FORM
10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statement File No.
33-51023 and No. 55137.

                                                    /s/ Fahn, Kanne & Co.

                                                      Fahn, Kanne & Co.

                                             Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)

Tel-Aviv, Israel
March 25, 1999
Exhibit 15.1

May 3, 2010

Securities and Exchange
Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated May 3, 2010 on our review of interim financial information of NSTAR for the three-month periods ended
March 31, 2010 and 2009 and included in the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-155779 and 333-162401), Form
S-4 (No. 333-78285) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-142595, 333-160263, and 333-87272).



|                              
|------------------------------
|Very truly yours,             
|                              
|/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
|PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### Fred Gaylord, by Guardian, Respondent, v. The Syracuse, Binghamton and New York Railroad Company, Appellant.

— Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Follett, J.
# Death of Abu Jandal al-Kuwaiti

/ Published Dec. 29, 2016
December 29, 2016Release #20161229-01FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:**SOUTHWEST ASIA —**On Monday, Dec. 26, Abu Jandal al-Kuwaiti, an ISIL gang leader in Raqqah was struck and killed by a coalition airstrike near Tabqa Dam, Syria.He was a previous member of the ISIL's War Committee and was involved in their retaking of Palmyra, Syria, before being reassigned to Tabqa to try to improve ISIL's defenses against the Syrian Democratic Forces.Abu Jandal was involved in the use of suicide vehicles, IEDs and chemical weapons against the SDF. Because of his associations with ISIL terror attack planners and War Council members, his death will degrade ISIL's ability to defend Raqqah and launch external operations against the West.
#### HOWARD S. AUSTERMUHL, PROSECUTOR, v. BOROUGH OF COLLINGSWOOD, RESPONDENT.

Submitted January term, 1933

Decided July 25, 1933.

Before Justices Parker, Lloyd and Heher.

Por the prosecutor, *Albert 8. Woodruff.*

Por the respondent, *John A. Penn.*

Per Curiam.

The rule in this case is for a writ of *certiorari*to review an ordinance of the borough of Collingswood providing for the regulation and use of fences and fence materials, and providing a penalty for the violation thereof. The ordinance prohibits the erection of any fence above four feet in height *672without the permission of the board of commissioners and requires the removal of existing fences not conforming to the provisions of the ordinance, if so directed by the board of commissioners. Under this a fence previously erected by the prosecutor was directed to be removed or altered to conform to the ordinance.

Proofs were taken in pursuance of the rule and apparently from these it would appear that the ordinance as to the prosecutor’s property was illegal under such cases as *Passaic*v. *Paterson Bill Posting Co.,*72 *N. J. L.*285; 62 *Atl. Rep.*267, but without so deciding at this stage of the proceedings, it is sufficient to say that the writ will be allowed.
From: Linda L McDonald

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Health Care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:57:20 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Sent from my iPad
From: Ria Fay-Berquist

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:08:20 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

Wonderful news! Progress.

Sincerely,

Ria Fay-Berquist

822 3/4 N Las Palmas

Los Angeles, CA 90038
#### MAX EICHELBAUM, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MORRIS STULBACH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted October 14, 1932

Decided March 25, 1933.

Before Justices Trenciiard, Case and Brogan.

Dor the plaintiff-respondent, *Benjamin H. Stadtmauer.*

Dor the defendant-appellant, *Irving L. Werksman.*

Per Cijriam.

The action is for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while passing over the sidewalk in front of defendant’s premises. The judge, sitting without a jury, gave judgment to the plaintiff. Defendant appeals and presents four points *232which may be adequately comprehended in the refusal of the trial court to nonsuit and to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant.

Plaintiff, while passing along the sidewalk in front of the premises owned by the defendant, was thrown by the sudden opening, from beneath, of one of the double iron cellar doors that, when closed, had been flush with the sidewalk. The building was occupied exclusively by tenants, and the mishap was caused by the son of a tenant making exit from the cellar where he had been of right and for the tenant’s purposes.

Plaintiff relies upon the proposition that the door was not locked and that as it was in process of being opened there were no signals or guards to protect the public. It is in these respects that negligence is charged against the defendant.

That the accident happened from the act of the tenant’s grown son is not in dispute. So far as the present suit is concerned the act was in effect that of the tenant himself. Indeed the testimony of the plaintiff, introduced as an answer to an interrogatory, is that the cause of the plaintiff’s accident was that “plaintiff was thrown to the pavement by a tenant who opened the said cellar doors and (as?) the said plaintiff was passing the same.”

It appears, we think, from our cases as recently reviewed by the Court of Errors and Appeals in *Arnold*v. *Dlugo et al.,*110 *N. J. L.*89; 164 *Atl. Rep.*320, that mere ownership of premises does not visit liability upon an owner for the negligent act of a tenant in raising, without warning, cellar doors of mechanically correct construction, being a part of the sidewalk, while a pedestrian is standing thereon or passing thereover. There is no proof that the doors were not of correct and standard construction or that they were in defective condition. The doors could not, of course, remain locked while someone was in the act of opening them. We find no proof of actionable negligence. There was error in the refusal of the defendant’s motions for nonsuit and direction.

The judgment below will be reversed, costs to abide the event.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.31 MB)
 
 rafale BAP H5 Jordanie baptême chammal largage monoplace retour
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.16 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
From: Robert Pruter

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:34:15 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept

the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women

better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services,

are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are

pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with

religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they

employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Margaret F. Pruter

576 Stratford Ave.

Elmhurst, IL 60126
SAMUEL REYES, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Petitioner, 

Civil Action No. 

HARLEY LAPPIN, et al., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

NOV 3 0 2009 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

09 2262 

This matter is before the Court on petitioner's pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and 

his application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons stated below, the petition will be 

denied. 

Petitioner states that, on September 13, 2003, he pled guilty to one count of the criminal 

indictment against him for violation of21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(b)(1)(B), and 963. Pet. at 2. He 

alleges that the United States Probation Officer's sentencing recommendation erroneously 

factored in certain prior convictions and, as a result, the guideline range under the then-applicable 

United States Sentencing Guidelines was increased. Id. at 2-3. He "prays ... to be resentenced 

from level 35 category III at 210 months with 2 prior convictions counted to Level 35 without the 

prior conviction ... and a total of term 188 months [ .]" Id. at 3-4. 

The Court construes the petition as a challenge to the legality of a criminal sentence. A 

challenge of this nature must be presented to the sentencing court in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255. See Ojo v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv.,106 F.3d 680,683 (5th Cir. 1997) 

1 
(sentencing court is the only court with jurisdiction to hear the defendant's complaint regarding 

errors that occurred before or during sentencing). Section 2255 provides specifically that: 

[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act 

of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the 

sentence was imposedjn violation of the Constitution or laws ofthe 

United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose 

such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum 

authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may 

move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or 

correct the sentence. 

28 US.C. § 2255(a) (emphasis added). Moreover, the ability to challenge a conviction by a 

motion to vacate sentence generally precludes a challenge by a petition for habeas corpus: 

[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner 

who is authorized to apply for reliefbymotion pursuant to [28 US.c. 

§ 2255], shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has 

failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, 

or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the 

remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of 

his detention. 

28 US.c. § 2255(e) (emphasis added). 

The Court therefore will dismiss the petition without prejudice. An Order consistent with 

this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately on this same date. 

Date: \ \ 120 { 0 I 

2