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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

          - [CMS-3383-N2]

# AGENCY:

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice; exemption period extension.

# SUMMARY:

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announce the extension of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) exemption period for the State of Washington. The exemption period is extended for 6 months, that is until April 2, 2024.

# DATES:

The exemption granted by this notice is effective from October 2, 2023 to April 2, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Hasan, (410) 786-6480.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the “Medicare, Medicaid, and CLIA Programs; Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 Exemption of Laboratories Licensed by the State of Washington” notice that appeared in the September 30, 2019                     **Federal Register**                     (84 FR 51591), we announced that laboratories located in and licensed by the State of Washington that possess a valid license under the Medical Test Site law, Chapter 70.42 of the Revised Code of Washington, are exempt from the requirements of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) for a period of 4 years. This period expires on October 2, 2023. Pending re-approval of Washington State's CLIA exemption period, we are extending Washington State's current CLIA exemption period for 6 months, that is until April 2, 2024.                

                    The Administrator of CMS, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Chyana Woodard, who is the                     **Federal Register**                     Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Chyana Woodard,

Federal Register Liaison, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

[FR Doc. 2023-21460 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
```

[114th Congress Public Law 43]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 129 STAT. 470]]

Public Law 114-43
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To reduce duplication of information technology at the Department of 
Homeland Security, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Aug. 6, 2015 -  [H.R. 
                                1626]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: DHS IT 
Duplication Reduction Act of 2015.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``DHS IT Duplication Reduction Act of 
2015''.
SEC. 2. DHS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DUPLICATION REDUCTION.

    (a) <<NOTE: Deadline. Reports.>>  Information Technology Duplication 
Reduction.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland 
Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report that includes the following:
            (1) The number of information technology systems at the 
        Department of Homeland Security.
            (2) An assessment of the number of such systems exhibiting 
        duplication or fragmentation.
            (3) A strategy for reducing such duplicative systems, 
        including an assessment of potential cost savings or cost 
        avoidance as a result of such reduction.
            (4) A methodology for determining which system should be 
        eliminated when there is duplication or fragmentation.

    (b) Definitions.--In this Act:
            (1) The term ``duplication or fragmentation'' of information 
        technology systems means two or more systems or programs that 
        deliver similar functionality to similar user populations.
            (2) The term ``information technology'' has the meaning 
        given such term in section 11101 of title 40, United States 
        Code.

[[Page 129 STAT. 471]]

    (c) No New Authorization of Funding.--This section shall be carried 
out using amounts otherwise appropriated or made available to the 
Department of Homeland Security. No additional funds are authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section.

    Approved August 6, 2015.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1626:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114-162 (Comm. on Homeland Security).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015):
            June 23, considered and passed House.
            July 23, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed November 3, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-01258-CR

JERRY ANTOINE NOLAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-00427-M

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Bridges, Francis, and Myers

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s counsel has approved the 

motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeal be DISMISSED and 

this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

151258F.U05
Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JERRY ANTOINE NOLAN, Appellant

No. 05-15-01258-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-00427-M.

Opinion delivered per curiam befire Justices 

Bridges, Francis, and Myers.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 3rd day of November, 2015.
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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

SUZANNE DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT

COMMISSION, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5720JKA

ORDER GRANTING I.F.P.

 APPLICATION

Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff does

not appear to have funds available to afford the $250.00 filing fee. Plaintiff shall note that leave to proceed as

a pauper does not necessarily entitle plaintiff to a waiver of any other cost(s) of litigation. 

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff.

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05720-FDB Document 4 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FIRST
QUARTER 1997 10-Q OF INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000874578
<NAME> INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          17,489
<SECURITIES>                                   148,708
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,229
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    110,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               405,646
<PP&E>                                         492,240
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,367,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          134,750
<BONDS>                                        342,785
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           999
<OTHER-SE>                                     721,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,367,219
<SALES>                                        191,157
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               191,157
<CGS>                                          114,161
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  114,161
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,194
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,006
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,188
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,188
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
No. 66543.

#### Norman G. Jensen, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/28079 and 61/4984 (Seattle).

*365Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decharaeterized horsemeat, fresh, chilled, or frozen, similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66254, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 58656.

protests 183274-K, etc. (New York).

#### N. I. Malmstrom & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Hartolan wool wax alcohols similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 58111, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

GENERAL METALS OF TACOMA, INC., a

Washington corporation, and ARKEMA,

INC., a Pennsylvania corporation,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

BEAN ENVIRONMENTAL LLC, a

Delaware Limited Liability Company; and

BEAN DREDGING LLC, a Louisiana

Limited Liability Company,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5306RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment to Dismiss Defendants’ Claims for Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation [Dkt. #138].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, and having heard the argument of the

parties, the Court hereby rules as follows:

The defendants seek rescission of the contract between Bean and HHCG based upon HHCG’s failure

to disclose the presence of asbestos in areas to be dredged. Bean alleges that this failure to disclose is fraud

in the inducement. The defendants argue that they would not have entered into the contract to dredge the area

had they known of the presence of asbestos.

Rescission is an equitable remedy to be decided by the Court. See Willener v. Sweeting, 107 Wn.2d

388, 397 (1986). The defendants claim they were damaged as a result of the alleged fraud because they

Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 192 Filed 12/01/06 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

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

entered into a contract they would not otherwise have entered. Based upon the facts presented so far, genuine

issues of material fact exist as to whether or not defendants would have entered the contract had they known

of the asbestos. The existence of genuine issues of material fact preclude the entry of summary judgment. It

may appear after the Court has heard the evidence at trial that defendants’ request to rescind the contract lacks

merit; however, the Court will not at this time summarily dismiss this claim. 

At trial, the fact of the discovery and remediation of asbestos may be addressed through testimony,

however, the argument regarding fraud in the inducement justifying rescission will only be addressed to the

Court outside the presence of the jury. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. #138] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 1st day of December, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 192 Filed 12/01/06 Page 2 of 2
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 528 

Commemorating the 300th anniversary of the Town of New Milford, 

Connecticut. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2007 

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut (for himself, Mr. COURTNEY, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. 

LARSON of Connecticut, and Mr. SHAYS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 300th anniversary of the Town of New 

Milford, Connecticut. 

Whereas New Milford is located in Litchfield County, on the 

western border of Connecticut, in the Housatonic Valley; 

Whereas the settlement of New Milford began in 1706, when 

John Noble, Sr., purchased a portion of land known as 

Weantinogue; 

Whereas in 1707, Noble and his daughter settled in New Milford, followed by 12 other families; 

Whereas beginning in 1774, New Milford demonstrated its 

support for the Revolutionary War by providing financial 

support to the servicemen and sending 285 of its 2,700 

inhabitants to battle; 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 528 IH 

Whereas New Milford was a center of Underground Railroad 

work in Connecticut, with many of its residents offering 

their homes as places for slaves to take refuge on their 

journey to freedom; 

Whereas the late 1800s marked the arrival of many new industries and businesses in New Milford, including the 

manufacturing of furniture, paints, and pottery; 

Whereas in 1902, New Milford’s worst disaster occurred 

when a raging fire completely destroyed the town’s main 

business district on Bank Street; 

Whereas the population of New Milford stood at 3,000 in 

1880 and has grown to nearly 30,000 today; 

Whereas at 64 square miles, New Milford is the largest town 

in Connecticut; and 

Whereas New Milford has been modernized through commercial and industrial growth, while retaining its deep sense 

of history, scenic beauty, and traditional New England 

character throughout the past 300 years: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) congratulates the Town of New Milford, 

3 Connecticut, on the occasion of its 300th anniver4 sary; and 

5 (2) honors the Town of New Milford for its sig6 nificant history, impressive growth, and considerable 

7 contributions to the State of Connecticut and the 

8 United States. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
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 Minute Order - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS E. DUNIGAN,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR05-5823RBL

MINUTE ORDER

NOW, on this 26TH day of January, 2007, the Court directs the Clerk to enter the following

Minute Order:

The Court directs the CJA Administrator to Appoint Independent Counsel for the express

purpose of advising Mr. Dunigan on the issue of conflict with his present counsel, Roger

Hunko. 

Briefing, if any, will be filed by Government and Defense Counsel not later than 2/5/2007

after which the court will issue its decision.

The foregoing Minute Order entered by s/Jean Boring ,

 Deputy Clerk, BY DIRECTION OF THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON, UNITED

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Case 3:05-cr-05823-RJB Document 180 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 505 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 25, 2007.
Whereas the boating community in the United States includes over 73,000,000 
        individuals, generates more than $39,000,000,000 annually in the United 
        States economy, and provides jobs for 380,000 citizens of the United 
        States;
Whereas boaters often serve as stewards of the marine environment of the United 
        States, educating future generations of the value of these resources, 
        and preserving such resources for such generations' enjoyment;
Whereas there are approximately 1,400 active boat builders in the United States, 
        using materials and services contributed from all 50 States;
Whereas boating, as an activity, provides opportunities for families to be 
        together, appeals to all age groups, and has a beneficial effect on the 
        physical fitness and scholastic performance of those who participate; 
        and
Whereas, July 1, 2007, would be an appropriate day to establish as National 
        Boating Day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
            (1) the recreational boating community and the boating industry of 
        the United States should be commended for their innumerable 
        contributions to the economy of the United States, the well-being of 
        United States citizens, and responsible environmental stewardship of the 
        marine resources of the United States; and
            (2) the President should issue a proclamation calling on the people 
        of the United States to observe National Boating Day with appropriate 
        programs and activities.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leon Street, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 666]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered June 23, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Thomas, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence, in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish physical injury and therefore legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of robbery in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, *705upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied, that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The showup identification of the defendant was not police-arranged and, in any event, was not suggestive *(see, People v Duuvon,*77 NY2d 541).

The defendant’s claim that his sentence was excessive because it was in excess of the term of imprisonment offered during a plea negotiation is without merit. It is firmly established that sentences imposed after trial may be more severe than those proposed in connection with a plea bargain *(see, People v Pena,*50 NY2d 400, *cert denied*449 US 1087; *People v Clarke,*195 AD2d 569).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998             MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997             NOV-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                       2,989,000               2,989,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,075,000               2,075,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (244,000)               (244,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    180,000                 180,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,168,000               5,168,000
<PP&E>                                      15,063,000              15,063,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,839,000)             (3,839,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,640,000              31,640,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,830,000               5,830,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       283,000                 283,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,640,000              31,640,000
<SALES>                                      4,354,000               9,132,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,847,000              12,065,000
<CGS>                                        4,251,000               8,801,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,629,000              11,655,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             198,000                 406,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                218,000                 410,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    76,000                 143,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   142,000                 267,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01                     .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01                     .01
        


</TABLE>