alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 383 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 9, 2007. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 1873) to reauthorize the programs and activities of the Small Business Administration relating to procurement, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 

9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the 

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Small Business. After general debate the bill 

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 

rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for 

the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform now print-
2 

•HRES 383 EH 

ed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 

substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 

of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 

amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 

substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report 

of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. 

Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 

printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not 

be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 

Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 

or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 

bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 

bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 

adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the 

House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 

Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
3 

•HRES 383 EH 

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1873 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Appendix EClean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)Cost-Effective air pollution Controls9/1/2006CommentsReferenceRegulatory Body/RuleSO2NOxSO2NOxBART100 to 1000100 to 100070 FR 39135BART281 to 129670 FR 39135 Table 3BART91970 FR 39133BARTGuidelines disparagingly reference "thousands ofdollars per ton" in commenting on the need toexceed MACT and its general unreasonableness.70_FR_25210_CAIR.pdf CAIR1300Estimated Marginal cost 2009BART(proposed rule) 200-1000BART proposed lists this as values for 90-95%SO2 control, which is still assumed, or .1 to .15lb/MMBtu. Dropped from final to give statesflexibility to require more. Says for scrubbers,bypasses aren't BART, only 100% scrubbing isBART.BART(proposed rule)0.2 lb/MMBtu for NOx is assumed reasonble.Recognizes that some sources may need SCR toget this level. For those, state discretion of thethecost vs. visibility value is necessary.CAIR(using IPM)1000 1500CAIR ( 2009 in 1999$) 900 2400CAIR ( 2015 in 1999$) 1800 3000CAIR (depending on Nat'lemissions)1200 - 3000 1400- 2100This was modeled with TRUM (TechnologlyRetrofitting Updating Model) to develop themarginal values.Kammer_EPA_Decision.doc Kammer Decisionover 1000 over 1000LADCO_MidwestRPO_Boiler Analysis.pdf LADCO/Midwest RPO 1240 to 3822 607 to 4493MANE-VU_BART_Control_Assessment.pdf MANE-VU200-500 200-1500Bowers_vs_SWAPCA.txt Bowers vs SWAPCA 300 300 1000 1000954-1134 was ruled too much, in favor of 256-310for SO2. This did consider incremental value.Sections XVII to XIXWRAP3000EPA - Referenced by WrapReferences EPA-600S\7-90-018. Low is<$500/ton, Moderate is $500-3000/ton, High isover $3000/tonWRAP_Trading_program_methodology.pdfAvg. Expected Values ($/ton) Limiting/Marginal values ($/ton)MidwestRPO_rept_referencing_CAIR.pdfFR_Notice_5MAY04_Proposed_Rule.pdfFR_Notice_6JULY05_Final_Rule.pdfY:\23\00 MN Taconite BART (2006)\Facility BART Reports\HTC\Appendix E - Table of Costs_per_ton.xls
From: erickfcc@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:49:35 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,

Erick Melgarejo

Hialeah, FL 33014
From: 47lilpolock@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:43:28 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,

Bonnie Thiem

Rio Rancho, NM 87124
From: s.k.willems@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:45:47 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,

linda willems

North Richland Hills, TX 76180
# QBffice oftoeElttotnep

43eneral &ate of ?ICexas DAN MORALES Al-muNEy GENERAL THE OPINION "O-1669" MUST BE REQUESTED FROMTEXAS STATE LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES 201 BRAZDS, ROOM 100, AUSTIN, TEXAS. PHONE: 463-5480.

512/463-2100 P.O. Box 12548 AUSTIN. TEXAS 787 11.2548
December 29, 1954

No. 58654.

Suits 4754 and 4762.

#### United States *v.*U. S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc.

Segregation op Commingled Goods — Molasses.—C. D. 1458. (Suit 4754 dismissed as premature on February 4, 1954. C. A. D. 551.) (Suit 4762 dismissed on stipulation of counsel on November 5, 1954.)
Before Judge Beckworth,

August 30, 1968

No. R68/28.

reappraisements R60/7694, etc. (Boston).

No. R68/29.

reappraisements R63/1630, etc. (Boston).

#### Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc. *v.*United States, Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, the facts, and the issues are the same in all material respects as those in *United States*v. *Chadwick-Miller Imports, Inc., et al.*(54 CCPA 93, C.A.D. 914), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (.b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise which was exported from Japan and is covered by these appeals and that said value is represented by the invoice unit ex-factory prices, net packed.
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 40-2 Filed 10/20/06 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 40-2 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 40-2 Filed 10/20/06 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 40-2 Filed 10/20/06 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 40-2 Filed 10/20/06 Page 5 of 5
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 549 

Recognizing the importance of America’s Waterway Watch program, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 16, 2007 

Mr. BILIRAKIS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of America’s Waterway Watch 

program, and for other purposes. 

Whereas the United States has a maritime border that exceeds 95,000 miles; 

Whereas the Department of Homeland Security has begun to 

focus greater attention on potential security threats from 

small vessels and the importance of increasing maritime 

domain awareness; 

Whereas the Coast Guard currently conducts a maritime 

homeland security public awareness program called 

America’s Waterway Watch program; 

Whereas America’s Waterway Watch is a public outreach 

program to encourage America’s 70,000,000 boaters and 

others who live, work, or engage in recreational activities 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 549 IH 

around America’s waterways to maintain a heightened 

sense of awareness in the maritime domain and report 

suspicious and unusual activities to the Coast Guard National Response Center and other appropriate law enforcement agencies; 

Whereas America’s Waterway Watch program educates the 

public on what suspicious activity is and provides a tollfree telephone number, (877) 24–WATCH, for the public 

to report such activity to prevent terrorism and other 

criminal acts; 

Whereas the Coast Guard promotes this program by distributing educational materials, boat decals, posters, and reporting forms to recreational boaters, marine dealers, 

marinas, and other businesses located near waterways; 

Whereas America’s Waterway Watch program acts as a force 

multiplier for the Coast Guard and local law enforcement 

and builds on local and regional security programs; 

Whereas the Department of Homeland Security conducted a 

National Small Vessel Security Summit on June 19 and 

June 20, 2007, to educate small vessel operators and 

other stakeholders on current security risks and initiate 

dialogue on possible solutions to mitigate gaps in United 

States maritime domain awareness; and 

Whereas, during the National Small Vessel Security Summit, 

participants highlighted America’s Waterway Watch program and recognized its importance to increasing maritime domain awareness: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the importance of increasing 

3 maritime domain awareness; 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 549 IH 

1 (2) encourages those who live, work, or engage 

2 in recreational activities around America’s water3 ways to maintain a heightened sense of awareness in 

4 the maritime domain and report suspicious and un5 usual activities to appropriate authorities; and 

6 (3) supports the goals of America’s Waterway 

7 Watch program. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
From: cbcobb81@citcom.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:53:07 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,

Barbara Cobb

Brevard, NC 28712
Case No. 14,214.

#### Ex parte TUCKER.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 89.] 1

Circuit Court. District of Columbia.

April Term, 1802.

Naturalization — Residence—Deposition.

Upon application for naturalization a deposition • in 1802, that the deponents have known the ap- • plieant “since the year 1793, in New York,” is not evidence that he was residing in the United States before the 29th of January, 1795.

TUCKER. Ex parte. See Case No. 10,547.’

John Tucker, a native of the Island of Bermuda, applied to be admitted a citizen of the United States, under the law of April 14th, 1802. A deposition of Governeer and Kemble, taken before a notary-public, stated that they have known him “since the year 1793, in New York, and that he was a supercargo in their employ in the year 1795', and continued till 1798.”

The application was made under the clause authorizing persons resident in the United States before the 29th of January, 1795, to become citizens on proof of two years residence, &c.

THE COURT

were unanimously of opinion that the affidavit was not sufficient.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J.
Jeffries, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


                                           /S/ Michael J. Jeffries
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Michael J. Jeffries
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Financial Officer and
                                           Chief Accounting Officer)
                                           November 5, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or any
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
1 

### Jim Staudt

From: Jennifer.Zagorski@potashcorp.com

Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 4:08 PM

To: Jim Staudt

Subject: RE: cost for anhydrous ammonia to Wyoming

Jim,

It would be around $625 per short ton FOB at this time . As you know, this is continuously changing.

Thanks,

Jen

Jennifer A Zagorski

PCS Sales

1101 Skokie Blvd

Northbrook, IL 60062

Phone: 847.849.4377

Fax: 847.849.4489

Cell: 847.612.5301

Email: jennifer.zagorski@potashcorp.com

From: "Jim Staudt" < staudt@andovertechnology.com >

To: < Jennifer.Zagorski@potashcorp.com >,

Date: 09/27/2013 02:58 PM

Subject: RE: cost for anhydrous ammonia to Wyoming

If you can get it easily, that would be good. Anhydrous ammonia FOB Wyoming.

Jim

From: Jennifer.Zagorski@potashcorp.com [ mailto:Jennifer.Zagorski@potashcorp.com ]

Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 3:55 PM

To: Jim Staudt

Subject: Re: cost for anhydrous ammonia to Wyoming

Hi Jim,

I apologize that I couldn't get that answer to you last week. Would you still need something?

Thanks,

Jen

Jennifer A Zagorski

PCS Sales

1101 Skokie Blvd2 Northbrook, IL 60062

Phone: 847.849.4377

Fax: 847.849.4489

Cell: 847.612.5301

Email: jennifer.zagorski@potashcorp.com

From: "Jim Staudt" < staudt@andovertechnology.com >

To: "'Jennifer A. Zagorski'" < jennifer.zagorski@potashcorp.com >,

Date: 09/20/2013 01:08 PM

Subject: cost for anhydrous ammonia to Wyoming

Jennifer,

I am putting together a cost estimate that I have to get together today and

need an estimate for anhydrous ammonia delivered to Wyoming.

If you can't get it today, it's not the end of the world. I'll use the

utility estimate. But, I'd like an independent estimate if possible.

Best Regards,

Jim Staudt, Ph.D., CFA

Andover Technology Partners

office: 978-683-9599

mobile: 978- 884-5510

[attachment "winmail.dat" deleted by Jennifer Zagorski/Sales/Northbrook/Inc/PCS]