alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 

1. 

(_ 

2. 

I_ 3. 

4. 

{_ 5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

-

List of Speakers for the Public Hearing on the Carbon Pollution Standard 

M11y 24, 2012 * Chicago, IL Lake Erie Room 

Name Affiliation I City I State E-mail I Telephone Number 

oa\r-t~ '-1<2-0 ~ s Z ~ \l.:lS tc . .", 

~et1r1\ ~ ( a_S_SP I 

f\ r- G E ("2. l.-AO~ RAT \-t <t.~ > R- ~4Gt-1 

<S L pt. \Lt. L ~ ~c l~ 

Gt~n+ Svn, ~ 

J)R\J t.. Y'\ ~ ~ z t_(Z_ 

"Sci1n M c.- Cau t~ u 

SL't:.\S'C.. s; (2 '1::-l'ol ~ t. 'l:! ~~~o~oR~ ST~<:.)::: . (? )\}- 4~.._- ... .c? 

:::s () s E.. p \-\ s z u s "Z Vol ~ ._ ("'t \( 

~~ £?f'Le\<: v •r.o. ~ R 'U\ p -::, c_~ A-<"=.. F<t.n. 

~ C:H S<t, :V. 3oNL-.s 

~~LA- '(V"\ c ~ t I L--

,"L l c \i t"t (Z. fO s \ v. c:_'(L~'-t 

Note: Spelling errors may exist due to illegibility of writing Page No. 1 
No. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

List of Speakers for the Public Hearing on the Carbon Pollution Standard 

May 24, 2012 * Chicago, IL Lake Erie Room 

Name Affiliation I City I State E-mail I Telephone Number 

~ ~ 3€'~(+ .__.l ,- Gr~\JR-, ~ l A l, ~ , , , t e t-t 2~ 

l c.t.q ~vi .Q_.., 

5,~ney v . ~'~I~\ R YL 

~ 

~ IH \1 11 '-' ...._ 

Ohl ~ 

a ~ R. 1:1-'l"' t< A } S E. rz.. 

'f'Yl <T 1T ~ t w w \-\ \T 'C. n.. 

0) LL- :VR;\.ll s 

.:Do~~ f\' \1. R\ L Sf\ c. 

nn P.....n"'fl t-J ~I.J\ LaSK-I 

T CSG'--\ c_ \-tow 

s f:\ {'J p '-\ c (T{l._ f'i:.-Ct.-

AN'TA G3 f\ La(:)\ 5 MO 

l t-t~r-.-. e_ 'rnA r?.-

-:n~N~\S ~'Z-LSe>~ 

CA<LLA- <L \ s <l..l'i ~ ct(ZG; 

A L\ c. I A- \( l 't_ f' t-ctf<- - - - --

Note: Spelling errors may exist due to illegibility of writing Page No.2 
No. 

31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

)9._ 

ti-1 

40. 

4 1. 

42. 

28. "3Gt 

44. 

45. 

List of Speakers for the Public Hearing on the Carbon Pollution Standard 

May 24, 2012 * Chicago, IL Lake Erie Room 

Name Affiliation I City I State E-mail I Telephone Number 

(\\e.,\ e_a._ 'n Geer\-s VV\a ....--

~uo'1 S ¥-nG 

"JJG('J f <C.. rz_ ~ct. a. 

f15Vt\"\l q 0 rJ ~ R.(Z) ('\- \orrn.'t..S. 

~()W~R..p L1:.. ~ 

LtA-N~ c.,q..sT ~,v 

Q ~ (.3 <t:._("Z."t 0 (.. 1-\ a_ tr- G ('i r;r-

-v~\ \NA L 1 ~ (2.. 

h-- \C.H<"t~L... C \-\L lNG;~_(2 :5\!-, 

G.. ("\ (2.. Y. ::) c (U<i:..!:> 

c f.:\ f"Z_() \..."' .--.1 G ~n..\1...)\ rJ 

~wr<a.nt...JL Lemon 

ANDI..t f\~0\Z E 

.3oC. 'i:.. '-lt N (7. \.J\5 

-L L < c G.L 1-- r -,c ..-. '-' \ I" l_ ~ ,...., ·- \.... 

c 0n.~ :Scs('J ~s 

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

Note: Spelling errors may exist due to illegibility of writing Page No.3 
No. 

46. 

47. 

48. 

49. 

50. 

51. 

52. 

53. 

54. 

55. 

56. 

57. 

58. 

59. 

60. 

List of Speakers for the Public Hearing on the Carbon Pollution Standard 

May 24, 2012 * Chicago, IL Lake Erie Room 

Name Affiliation I City I State E-mail I Telephone Number 

"""""' Pt n. \ <; s ~ L\ <C. 43 n: nf:I.N 

L '4. t"" R- "f'..l \)j ~L,C. ~ 

Note: Spelling errors may exist due to illegibility of writing Page No.4
Before the First Division,

December 8, 1965

No. 69668.

#### Overseas Commodities Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 61/18665, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, consisting of miniature electric motors, and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Order entered July 30, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00456-CV

VILLAGE CRESTMONT HOUSTON USA, L.L.C. AND WEST CRESTMONT 

HOUSTON USA, L.L.C., Appellants

V.

JOSE J. GAITAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A EC & J REMODELING & PAINTING,

Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-08108

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated April 28, 2015, we 

notified the official court reporter for the 191st Judicial District Court that the reporter’s record 

was overdue. We directed the court reporter to file the record within thirty days. To date, we 

have not received any response. 

Accordingly, we ORDER Court Reporter Melba Wright o file, within TEN DAYS of the 

date of this order, either (1) the reporter’s record; or (2) written verification that appellants have 

not requested, paid for, or made payment arrangements for the record. We notify appellants that 

if we receive verification that appellants have not requested, paid for, or made payment 
arrangements for the reporter’s record, we will order the appeal submitted without the 

reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
From: zillioxsterbox@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:12:01 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

s zilliox

Los Alamitos, CA 90720
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rafael PEREZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-10481.

D.C. No. CR-03-00375-HDM/RJJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2005.

*659Robert A. Bork, USLV — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff — Appellee.

Jason F. Carr, FPDNV — Federal Public Defender’s Office (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant — Appellant.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).-

MEMORANDUM**

Rafael Perez-Martinez appeals his sentence imposed after his guilty plea to unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the district court violated his constitutional rights in increasing his sentence based on a fact— the prior commission of an aggravated felony — neither charged in the indictment nor admitted as part of the guilty plea. As Perez-Martinez acknowledges, this contention is foreclosed by this court’s case law. *See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*No. 03-30387, slip op. 7773, 7790 n. 8, 2005 WL 1560269 (9th Cir. July 5, 2005) (amended opinion).

Perez-Martinez was sentenced before the United States Supreme Court held in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were effectively advisory. The record does not show how the district court would have proceeded if it had known that the Sentencing Guidelines were not mandatory. Accordingly, we remand for the district court to answer the question whether the sentence would have been materially different if it had known that the Guidelines were advisory, and for further proceedings under *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See Moreno-Hernandez,*slip op. at 7793-94, 2005 WL 1560269.

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 66511.

#### Globe Importing Company *v.*United States,

protest 59/21687 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, X

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass water mixers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies, Turner & Company*v. *United States*(47 C.C.P.A. 129, C.A.D. 744), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Registration No. 333-73083 424 (b)(2)
                                     Pricing Supplement No:228 Cusip:14912LD40
                                     Dated:  June 01,1999

	Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation
	Medium-Term Notes, Series F
	(Fixed Rate)
	With Maturities of 9 Months or More from Date of Issue
	Interest payable each April 1 and October 1 and at Maturity

Principal Amount:       Interest Rate:                Proceed Amount:
$25,000,000                 5.94%                       $24,968,750

Original Issue Date:    Commission Fee:               Maturity Date:
06/04/1999                $31,250                       12/04/2000

Dealer:
Merrill Lynch


Specified Currency:     Option to Elect Payment       Authorized Denominations
x U.S. dollars          in U.S. dollars               (only applicable if
_ Other:___________     (only applicable if           Specified Currency is
                        Specified Currency is         other than U.S.
                        other than U.S. dollars):      N/A
                           N/A

The Note is a:                                        Exchange Rate Agent
    X Global Note                                     (if other than First
      Certificated Note                                Trust New York): N/A
      (only applicable if
       Specified Currency
       is other than U.S. dollars)

Original Issue           Total Amount of OID: N/A    Terms of Amortizing
Discount Note:                                       Notes:  N/A
   Yes     x No          Issue Price (expressed
                         as a percentage of
                         aggregate principal
                         amount): 100%


Redemption Date(s) (including                        Redemption Price(s): N/A
any applicable regular or
special record dates): N/A

Repayment Date(s) (including                         Repayment Price(s): N/A
any applicable regular or
special record dates):  N/A

Interest Rate Reset Option:  _ Yes    X No

Optional Reset Dates (only applicable if option to reset interest rate):  N/A

Basis for Interest Rate Reset (only applicable if option to reset interest
rate): N/A

Stated Maturity Extension Option:  _ Yes    x No

Extension Period(s) and Final Maturity Date (only applicable if option to
extend stated maturity): N/A

Basis for Interest Rate During Extension Period (only applicable if option to
extend stated maturity): N/A



Historical Exchange Rate (only applicable if Specified Currency other than
U.S. dollars): N/A

     The interest rates on the Notes may be changed by Caterpillar Financial
Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect
the interest rate on any Note ordered prior to the effective date of the
change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $510.00MM principal
amount of the Notes had been sold at interest rates then in effect.

	_________________________________

	Pricing Supplement to Prospectus Supplement dated March 25, 1999
	and Prospectus dated March 25, 1999
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 13 - 00606 - CR

PRISCILLA PENA APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Pr iscilla Pena filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s November 17, 2013 order recommend ing to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
that relief on h er October 2013 postconviction application for writ of habeas corpus be d enied

. 2 In the meantim e, as required under article 11.07 of the code

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, §§ 3, 5 (West Supp. 2013)

.2 of criminal procedure , the trial court clerk transmitted Appellant’s application and the trial court’s order to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which denied habeas relief. 3 We sent Appellant a letter noti fying her of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal from a postconviction order and indicating that this appeal could be dismissed absent a response from Appellant or any party
sho wing grounds for jurisdiction. We have received no response

. We generally have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant only from a judgment of conviction. 4 We do not have jurisdiction over a postconviction application for writ of habeas corpus in a felony case. 5 Accordingly, w e dismiss this app eal for want of jurisdiction.

3 See id.

4 See McKown v. State , 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).

5 Ex parte Wall , 2012 WL 5869595, at *9 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Nov. 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op. , not designated for publication) (citations omitted); s ee Tex. Code Crim. Pro c. Ann. art. 11.07, § 5; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (stating that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the “only court with jurisdiction in final post

conviction felony proceedings”)

.3 PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: May 1, 2014
CONSENT OF COUNSEL

     We consent to the reference to our Firm under the heading "Counsel and
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in Post-Effective Amendment No.
21 to the Registration Statement on Form N-1A of Daily Income Fund as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about July 29, 2008.

/s/ PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP


New York, New York
July 29, 2008
# The Effects of Ultra

- Low Sulfur
Gasoline on Emissions from Tier 2
Vehicles in the In

- Use Fleet

Final Report

Appendix C
Additional Information on Emission

Measurements

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

NOTICE

This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data thatare currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of technical developments.

EPA-420-R-14-002
March 2014

### Appendix C. Additional Information on Emission Measurements

Gaseo us e missio ns (THC, CH4, NOx, CO) were mea sured using a Ho riba MEXA 7200SLE ana lyzer syste m. The instrume nt manufacturer gives the mea surement accuracy as ±1% o f full sca le or ±2% o f the rele va nt calibratio n po int(s).

Partic ulate matter (PM) was co llec ted b y trip licate 47 mm Te flo n filters for e ac h p hase (b ag) o f the test c ycle using a syste m co mp lia nt with 40 CF R Part 1065. The trip licate filter weights were ave raged to form a co mposite result for eac h test p hase. F ilters were eq uilibrated o vernig ht in a c lea n roo m e nviro nment b e fore tak ing p re- and post-test we ights. Weighing was do ne using a

Mettler To ledo UMT2 microbalance.
From: chyltin@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:14:48 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Cindy Hyltin

Plano, TX 75093
From: rosejaeger@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:34:19 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rose Jaeger

Bolingbrook, IL 60490
From: merrelljoyce@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:32:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the STRONGEST way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Merrell Wheeler

Fort Wayne, IN 46807
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00691- CR
David Eu gene Weir , Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F MI LAM CO UNTY, 20TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR24, 4 32, H ONO RAB LE JO HN Y OUNGB LOO D, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant David Eug ene Weir seeks to appea l a judgmen t o f conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code § 31.07. The trial court has cer tified that (1) this is a plea- barg ain case and Weir has no rig ht of appea l, and (2) Weir has waived the rig ht of appeal
. Ac co rd i ng ly , we dismiss the appea l for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a) (2), ( d).

____________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Nove mber 20, 2014 Do Not Publish