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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 502 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 22, 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. 2771) making appropriations for the Legislative 
Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, 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 Appropriations. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill 
for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding 
clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill 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. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 2771 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.
```
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 376 

Recognizing annually a National Classified School Employee of the Year 

and honoring the valuable contributions of Classified School Employees 

in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2007 

Ms. WOOLSEY (for herself, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, and Mr. 

HARE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

MAY 7, 2007 

Committee on Education and Labor discharged; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing annually a National Classified School Employee 

of the Year and honoring the valuable contributions of 

Classified School Employees in the United States. 

Whereas classified school employees provide valuable service 

to America’s public schools and community colleges; 

Whereas classified school employees contribute to the establishment and promotion of a positive instructional environment as paraeducators and library aides; 

Whereas classified school employees provide other essential 

educational services such as transportation, facilities 


ccoleman on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 376 ATH 

maintenance and operations, food and support services, 

and health care; 

Whereas classified school employees play a vital role in providing for the welfare and safety of America’s school children and students; 

Whereas classified school employees strive for excellence in all 

areas relative to the education community; and 

Whereas in order that classified school employees are acknowledged for their outstanding contribution to quality 

education across America, the National Classified School 

Employee of the Year is recognized: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That The House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the recognition of the National 

3 Classified School Employee of the Year and urges 

4 the United States Department of Education, all 

5 States, State education agencies, local education 

6 agencies, community colleges, and members of the 

7 public to join in this observance; 

8 (2) congratulates the National Classified School 

9 Employee of the Year; and 

10 (3) congratulates all classified school employees 

11 across the Nation for their ongoing contributions to 

12 education, and for the key role they play in pro13 moting and ensuring student achievement, student 

14 safety and well-being. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC74 with BILLS
From: aaronalonge@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:49:43 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,

Aaron Alonge

Dpo, AA 34004
From: mmcnitt3@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:44:08 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,

Melanie McNitt

Minong, WI 54859
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 50488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20492]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires 
that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: Thursday, September 6, 2012, 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, 
Piketon, Ohio 45661.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Bradburne, Deputy Designated 
Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project 
Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897-3822, 
Joel.Bradburne@lex.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the 
Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the 
areas of environmental restoration, waste management and related 
activities.

Tentative Agenda

     Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda
     Approval of July Minutes
     Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments
     Federal Coordinator's Comments
     Liaisons' Comments
     Presentations
     Administrative Issues
     Subcommittee Updates
     Public Comments
     Final Comments from the Board
     Adjourn
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The EM 
SSAB, Portsmouth, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory 
committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons 
with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special 
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Joel Bradburne at 
least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed 
above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Joel Bradburne at the address 
or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days 
prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include 
the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer 
is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate 
the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public 
comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their 
comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Joel 
Bradburne at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will 
also be available at the following Web site: http://www.ports-ssab.energy.gov/.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on August 15, 2012.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-20492 Filed 8-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO AMEND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

THOMAS A. WEBER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TIME WARNER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1706L

ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO AMEND

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to add

four new defendants. (Dkt. #36). Defendants have not responded to the motion or opposed it.

There is no evidence that the proposed amendment is the result of bad faith or that it would

result in undue delay, prejudice to the opposing parties, or futility. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

motion to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within twenty days of

the date of this order.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01706-RSL Document 59 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 10/01/2014

FROM: Laura Farris/EPA Region 8

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Denver University Student Lecture held on 09/30/2014

SUMMARY: 

Laura Farris of EPA Region 8 gave a lecture on the Clean Power Plan that was proposed on June 2, 2014,

to undergraduate students at the University of Denver on 09/30/2014. The students are studying 

sustainability. 

ATTENDEES:

EPA Region 8

Laura Farris

External Stakeholders

Andrea Gelfuso Goetz, Adjunct Professor, Department of Geography and the Environment, U. of Denver

Students

Attachments

Clean Power Plan Powerpoint Presentation
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Propell Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward Bernstein,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 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) and 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/ Edward Bernstein President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) April 14, 2009
From: millie_ontiveros@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:07:40 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,

Amelia Ontiveros

Whittier, CA 90602
From: daniel1978@cnonline.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:10:32 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,

Daniel Shepard

Hollister, MO 65672
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORD ON MTN TO TAKE

ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

GARNER SMITH,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

HOME DEPOT USA, INC.,

Defendant(s).

NO. C05-1659P

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO TAKE ADDITIONAL

DEPOSITIONS

The above-entitled Court, having received and reviewed:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Additional Depositions and for Extension of Discovery

Deadline

2. Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

3. Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

and all exhibits and declarations attached thereto, makes the following ruling:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

Discussion

The time for discovery in this matter has lapsed; Plaintiff has deposed the ten witnesses which

he is permitted by the rules. Plaintiff seeks an extension of the discovery deadline and permission to

depose four additional witnesses. Nowhere in his briefing does Plaintiff specifically identify why these

four additional witnesses must be deposed, what information Plaintiff expects to obtain from the

additional witnesses and why the testimony of the previous ten deponents is insufficient to cover the

evidentiary territory with which Plaintiff is concerned. There has simply been an inadequate showing

as to why the Court should grant this extraordinary form of relief.

Case 2:05-cv-01659-MJP Document 28 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Order to Dismiss Indictment

CR06-240-MJP/Adrian Santana

ORD ON MTN TO TAKE

ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS - 2

At the same time, the Court wishes to respond to Defendant’s argument that, since Plaintiff

already knew who these witnesses were, Defendant need not identify them during the course of

discovery. Defendant is under an obligation to identify every person with knowledge relevant to the

litigation, to the extent it is aware of them. That obligation extends to every person, not only the

persons that Plaintiff may not have been aware of. That error was corrected when nine of the

witnesses identified were deposed.

Plaintiff’s motion will therefore be DENIED.

The clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated: August 30, 2006 A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01659-MJP Document 28 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Anthony REYNOLDS, a/k/a Mark Anthony Fain, a/k/a Mark Anthony Wilson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6762.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2001.

Decided June 18, 2001.

Mark Anthony Reynolds, pro se. Melvin W. Kahle, Jr., United States Attorney, Paul Thomas Camilletti, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, WV, for appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mark Anthony Reynolds seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to recuse the district court judge, his motion for bail, and his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), seeking relief from the court’s judgment denying his motion filed under 28 U .S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Reynolds,*Nos. CR-98-27; CA-00-65-1 (N.D.W.Va. Mar. 23, 2001). We deny Reynolds’ motion for bail and 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.

*DISMISSED.*