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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 695 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 695

  Expressing the support for designation of a ``National Fire Fighter 
  Appreciation Day'' to honor and celebrate the fire fighters of the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 2007

 Mr. Campbell of California submitted the following resolution; which 
    was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the support for designation of a ``National Fire Fighter 
  Appreciation Day'' to honor and celebrate the fire fighters of the 
                             United States.

Whereas there are more than 1,100,000 fire fighters in the United States;
Whereas approximately 75 percent of all fire fighters in the United States are 
        volunteers who receive little or no compensation for their heroic work;
Whereas there are more than 30,000 fire departments in the United States;
Whereas thousands of fire fighters have died in the line of duty since the date 
        that Benjamin Franklin founded the first volunteer fire department in 
        1735;
Whereas 346 fire fighters and emergency personnel died while responding to the 
        terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001;
Whereas fire fighters respond to more than 20,000,000 calls during a typical 
        year;
Whereas fire fighters also provide emergency medical services, hazardous 
        materials response, special rescue response, terrorism response, and 
        life safety education;
Whereas, in 1922, President Harding declared the week of October 9 to be Fire 
        Prevention Week; and
Whereas the second Tuesday in October is an appropriate day for the 
        establishment of a National Fire Fighter Appreciation Day: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the 
designation of a ``National Fire Fighter Appreciation Day'' to honor 
and celebrate the fire fighters of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Fact Sheet

Tri

- Cities Landfill, Draft Air Operating Permit Renewal August 20 , 2013

Background

Tri

- Cities Landfill (TCL) was required to obtain an air operating permit under the Clean Air Act for certain air po llutants emitted by the landfill. TCL initially applied for an operating permit in

200 5 , and was issued a specific type of air operating permit, known as a Title V Operating Permit, by the EPA on May 25, 2006

. Under the Title V program, TCL must periodic ally apply for renewal of this operating permit. We have reviewed TCL’s renewal application, and have prepared a draft version of the Title V permit renewal. As described in the public notice, we are now requesting public comments on the draft version of the permit renewal. This fact sheet contains a summary of certain details contained in the draft permit and S tatement of B asis (SOB) for the facility.

Facility Description

• TCL accepted residential and commercial wastes from 1972 to 1993.

• TCL ceased accepting waste in 1993, and is now a closed landfill

.

• TCL operates an active landfill gas collection system, which is the most stringent capture technology required by federal regulations.

• The majority of t he landfill gas captured by TCL is delivered of fsite to a separate facility, and is typically combusted to generate electricity.

• The captured landfill gas has a n NMOC destruction efficiency of at least 98% or to less

than 20 parts per million ( ppm )

.

• Because TCL does not accept new waste, the amount of landfill gas it generates has been declining since 1993, and is projected to continue to decline in to the future.

Air Operating Permit Description

• This renewed Title V air operating permit applies only to the air emissions from the

landfill

.

• This draft p ermit renewal does not contain any significant changes to existing permit

conditions.

• As described in the Title V air operating permit and Statement of Basis, TCL is subject to multiple federal regulations that are applicable to municipal solid waste landf ills. Based on the most recent annual compliance certification, TCL is in compliance with these federal regulations.
Dated:          March 27, 2009    By: /s/    E. Todd Whittemore                           Title:Executive Vice PresidentAurora Loan Services LLC,  as Master ServicerI, E. Todd Whittemore, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2008-2 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.E. Todd Whittemore**Exhibit 31 : Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications**(Senior Officer in charge of the servicing function of Aurora Loan Services LLC, in its capacity as master servicer)Name:In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:Bank of America, National Association, as successor bymerger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as CustodianNewport Management Corporation, as Sub-Contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLCU.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee and CustodianWestlake Settlement Services, LLC, as Sub-Contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLC
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC.
, Appellant,

v.

MARIE THERESE FRANCOIS
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1089

[ January 11, 201 8 ]

Appeal of a non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Joel T. Lazarus , Judge; L.T. Case No.

CACE

- 16

- 002972

.

David Rosenberg and Jarrett Cooper of Robertson, Anschutz & Schneid, P.L., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Michael H. Hirsch of Michael H. Hirsch, P.A., Fort L auderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY
, L EVINE and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Tyrone E. MURRAY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee. Tyrone E. Murray, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 01-1248, 01-1249.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 20, 2001.

Decided July 9, 2001.

Tyrone E. Murray, Sr., pro se. Tawana Elaine Davis, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

*161Before WIDENER, LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Tyrone E. Murray, Sr., appeals two district court orders. In Appeal No. 01-1248, Murray appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Murray’s claim for constructive discharge. This claim was dismissed as untimely. In Appeal No. 01-1249, Murray appeals the district court’s dismissal of eleven claims. The district court dismissed the first eight claims due to Murray’s failure to timely pursue administrative remedies. The district court dismissed his remaining three claims based on Murray’s failure to establish an adverse employment action. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s memorandum opinion, and the district court’s orders in each case, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Murray v. Henderson,*Nos. CA-00-358-L; CA-01-159-L (D. Md. filed Feb. 7, 2001, entered Feb. 8, 2001; filed Feb. 8, 2001, entered Feb. 9, 2001). We 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
From: Gerald Vilt

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:28:51 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Gerald Vilt
Darien, Illinois
No. P66/61.

protests 59/32267 and 60/3365 (New York).

#### Louis Marx & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of air horns similar *907in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin International Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# T1-MLR eq p<=0.05 POR>=10
URI -2012.12.31 10K EX10gg








Exhibit 10(gg) 


FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Fifth Amendment to the Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”), between United Rentals, Inc. (the “Company”) and Michael J. Kneeland (“Executive”), is made effective as of October 22, 2012.
WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Employment Agreement on August 22, 2008, which was subsequently amended on December 30, 2008, January 15, 2009, March 13, 2009, and October 26, 2012 (with an effective date of August 22, 2008) (the “Employment Agreement”);
WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company is authorized and empowered by the Board of Directors of the Company to provide oversight of executive officer and director compensation of the Company and to review and to determine and approve the compensation of Executive based on a number of factors, including competitive market data relevant to executive compensation;
WHEREAS, Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement permits the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, in its discretion, to increase the base salary of Executive;
WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has determined, following a review of competitive market data and other factors, that it is advisable and in the best interests of the Company to enter into this Amendment to reflect an increase in the base salary of Executive.  
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the Company and Executive hereby agree as follows (all capitalized terms used herein which are not defined herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the Employment Agreement):
1.     Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and restated to read as follows:
“Base Salary.  The Company agrees to pay to Executive a base salary (the “Base Salary”) at the annual rate of $950,000. The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company may determine in its sole discretion to increase, but not decrease, the Base Salary.  Payments of the Base Salary shall be payable in equal installments in accordance with the Company's standard payroll practices.”
2.     Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in effect as prior to the date hereof.
[Signature Page Follows.]


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed on its behalf by an officer thereunto duly authorized and Executive has duly executed this Amendment, effective as of the date and year first written above.


UNITED RENTALS, INC. 




By:   /s/ Jonathan M. Gottsegen
Name: Jonathan M. Gottsegen
Title: Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary


EXECUTIVE




/s/ Michael J. Kneeland
Michael J. Kneeland
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Massachusettsminuteman**
 
2005:Summer
2006:Winter
2008:Summer | Winter
2011:Fall
 
SuDoc Number:D 12.23/23:
Item Number:0356-A-26 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000808667
 
July 17, 2018
No. 68131.

#### Orientex, Ltd., and Wall Coverings Importers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 62/14980 and 62/14988 (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wallpaper sample books similar in all material respects to *270those the subject of *Carson M. Simon & Co.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. *118,*C.D. 2243), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SPARTA, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended July 4, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Schreiman,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, in my capacity as an officer
of the Company pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the
financial statements included in the report. August 11, 2004 /s/ David E. SchreimanDavid E. SchreimanChief Financial Officer
 - 24 -
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

KEVIN G. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5751 RBL/KLS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 NOTED FOR: JUNE 30, 2006 

This civil rights action has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge

Karen L. Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Plaintiff was

given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff commenced this action, naming twelve

defendants in a complaint that was four pages long. On January 12, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended

complaint, which he was ordered to amend. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was over fifty pages long and was so convoluted that the

court was unable to determine how many persons were named as defendants and what causes of

action were alleged against which defendants. Plaintiff was ordered to file a second amended

complaint by February 27, 2006. (Dkt. # 9). A series of mis-filings, transfers, motions without

Case 3:05-cv-05751-RBL Document 22 Filed 06/12/06 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

notice, filings crossing in the mail, and extensions followed. (See, e.g., Dkts. # 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 and

18). 

In light of plaintiff’s reported transfers between facilities and to allow plaintiff sufficient time

to comply with this court’s order to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff’s original deadline was

extended from February 27, 2006 until June 1, 2006. Plaintiff was advised that if he did not comply

with the court’s order to amend by that deadline, his case would be dismissed without prejudice for

lack of prosecution. Plaintiff has failed to amend his complaint and he has failed to request an

extension of his deadline to amend.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff was ordered to amend his complaint. (Dkt. # 21). Plaintiff has not complied with the

court’s order, nor has he sought an extension of the deadline. The court recommends the action be

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A proposed order accompanies this Report and

Recommendation. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written

objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those

objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time

limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on June 30,

2006, as noted in the caption. 

DATED this 12th day of June, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05751-RBL Document 22 Filed 06/12/06 Page 2 of 2
MAILING ADDRESS: UNITED AIR LINES, INC., 1025 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 1210, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 

STEVE MORRISSEY

MANAGING DIRECTOR—INTERNATIONAL & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

(202) 296-2733 

(202) 296-2873 FAX

STEVE.MORRISSEY@UNITED.COM

October 13, 2010 

Esta Rosenberg, Chief 

U.S. Carrier Licensing Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Joint Application of Continental Airlines, Inc. and United Air Lines, Inc. 

for Allocation of Seven U.S.-China Frequencies 

DOT-OST-2010-0256 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg: 

This is to advise that United has completed its poll of U.S. carrier representatives in the attached 

service list for the above-referenced application, filed on September 12, 2010. No carrier objects 

to the grant of this application. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 Steve Morrissey 

 Managing Director, International & 

Regulatory Affairs 

cc: Thuy Cooper
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing document on all 

persons named below by causing a copy to be sent via email: 

byerlyjr@state.gov 

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com 

carl.nelson@aa.com 

howard_kass@usairways.com 

jeff.morgan@delta.com 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

Annalei Avanceña 

Advisor—Regulatory Affairs 

Dated: October 13, 2010