alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. P66/330.

No. P66/331.

No. P66/332.

No. P66/333.

No. P66/334.

No. P66/335.

No. P66/336.

#### Frank P. Dow and Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 61/4963, etc. (Seattle). Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 62/19881, etc. (Seattle). Irving Raincoat Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 63/5553 and 63/19413 (Portland, Oreg.). Irving Raincoat Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 63/14074, etc. (Galveston). Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 63/18310, etc. (New York). Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 64/16384, etc. (New York). Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 65/7715, 65/7718, and 65/9021 (New York).

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of articles of synthetic rubber similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### Robert Holland KOON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. South CAROLINA; Henry D. McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 05-6957.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 26, 2005.

Robert Holland Koon, Appellant pro se.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Robert Holland Koon, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. *236§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Koon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.86

                                FIRST AMENDMENT

                                     TO THE

                                 SMART & FINAL
                     SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

     The Smart & Final Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the "Plan") is
hereby amended, effective as of March 31, 1999, as follows:

     1.  Section 1.29 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

            "1.29  "Standard Benefit" shall mean, for a Participant:

            (a)  the product of the Standard Benefit Percentage multiplied by
                 the Participant's Final Average Compensation; less
                                                               ----

            (b)  the Actuarial Equivalent of the Participant's benefits under
                 the Retirement Income Plan, calculated as a single life annuity
                 at age sixty-five (65); and

            (c)  For the Participant, Roger M. Laverty III, the Participant has
                 a vested interest in the Plan as of February 12, 1998 and the
                 Participant's Standard Benefit shall be determined according to
                 (a) and (b) above, and using a Standard Benefit Percentage of
                 50% and Final Average Compensation of $694,000; and

            (d)  For the Participant, Gerald L. Good, the Participant has a
                 vested interest in the Plan as of January 1, 1998 and the
                 Participant's Standard Benefit shall be $76,000 per year,
                 determined without regard to (a) or (b) above; and

            (e)  For the Participant, Ross E. Roeder, the Participant's interest
                 in the Plan will be vested as of January 3, 2002 and the
                 Participant's Standard Benefit shall be $125,000 per year,
                 determined without regard to (a) above, but such Standard
                 Benefit shall be reduced by any amount available to the
                 Participant under (b) above."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been executed by duly authorized
persons, as of the effective date written above.


By:    /s/ James E. Robinson             By:    /s/ Richard N. Phegley
       ---------------------                    ----------------------

Title: Senior Vice President             Title: Vice President & Treasurer
                                                Smart & Final Stores Corporation
Case 2:06-cr-00073 Document 26 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00073 Document 26 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00073 Document 26 Filed 09/22/06 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00073 Document 26 Filed 09/22/06 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00073 Document 26 Filed 09/22/06 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00073 Document 26 Filed 09/22/06 Page 6 of 6
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

STEVEN D. BAUER

Attorney at Law - SBN 50084

428 J Street - Suite 350

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 447-8262

Facsimile: (916) 447-2988

E-mail: baueresq@sbcglobal.net

Attorney for Defendant:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Crim. S- 06-0042MJP

)

 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL 

) MEMORANDUM 

v. ) REGARDING

) RESTITUTION 

CHRISTOPHER MAXWELL, )

)

 Defendant, )

 )

Had the government been above board in their handling of the Coulton School District

they might will be entitled to have their losses included in the restitution order, but that

is not the case. Although the government knew that the District was a potential victim

even before obtaining the search warrants in this case they chose not to disclose that

information. Restitution was discussed, considered and included in the written plea

agreement and during this entire process the government concealed the existence of the

District alleged losses. In fact the government kept the District a secret until after the

plea and the probation interview, thereby depriving the defense of an opportunity to

investigate the claim. while it was the government that chose to play fast and lose with

the defendant’s due process rights it will have to be the District that pays the price.

On a related matter involving restitution, the government was less than forthright about

the loss suffered by DOD. It was only during the sentencing hearing that the defense

learned that DOD suffered no actual loss. The threat posed to the military by Mr.
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

Maxwell’s conduct were handled entirely in-house using military personnel whose job

it was to do this very thing. The manner in which the plea negotiations were conducted

prevented the defense from discovering this overstatement prior to entering into the plea

agreement which the defense, at least, considered binding and no objection was made.

For these reasons the court’s existing judgement should remain unchanged and

restitution should not be increased..

Dated: September 25, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

/ s / Steven D. Bauer 

STEVEN D. BAUER 

I
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

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET

SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

(206) 553-7970

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF INITIAL SCHEDULING DATES - 1

(C05-5702-JKA)

The Honorable J. Kelley Arnold

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) NO. C05-5702JKA

)

) [PROPOSED]

) ORDER GRANTING

v. ) UNITED STATES’

) MOTION FOR EXTENSION

STUTZ FUEL AND OIL, INC., et al. ) OF INITIAL SCHEDULING

) DATES

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

THIS MATTER, having come before the Court upon the United States’ Motion for

Extension of Initial Scheduling Dates; the United States of America, being represented by its

counsel, John McKay, United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington, and

Kristin B. Johnson, Assistant United States Attorney; and the Court having reviewed the

pleadings; it is hereby

Case 3:05-cv-05702-FDB Document 15 Filed 12/20/05 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

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET

SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

(206) 553-7970

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF INITIAL SCHEDULING DATES - 2

(C05-5702-JKA)

ORDERED that the United States’ Motion for Extension of Initial Scheduling Dates is

GRANTED. 

If you consent, return consent forms by March 26, 2006. 

The FRCP 26(f) conference shall be held no later than April 12, 2006; the Initial

Disclosures shall be due no later than April 19, 2006; and the Joint Status Report shall be

due no later than April 26, 2006.

DATED this 20th day of December, 2005.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. KELLEY ARNOLD

United States Magistrate Judge

Presented by:

s/Kristin B. Johnson 

Kristin B. Johnson, WSBA 28189

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cv-05702-FDB Document 15 Filed 12/20/05 Page 2 of 2
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

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 (PROPOSED) - 1

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAMES S. GORDON, Jr., a married

individual, d/b/a

‘GORDONWORKS.COM'; OMNI

INNOVATIONS, LLC., a Washington

limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VIRTUMUNDO, INC, a Delaware

corporation d/b/a

ADNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM;

ADKNOWLEDGE, INC., a Delaware

corporation, d/b/a

ADKNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM; SCOTT

LYNN, an individual; and JOHN DOES,

1-X,

Defendants.

NO. CV06-0204JCC

ORDER [PROPOSED]

THIS MATTER has come before the Court on Defendants’ motion to exclude

testimony or compel Plaintiffs James S. Gordon, Jr. (“Gordon”) and Omni Innovations,

LLC (“Omni”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) to provide Defendants with an opportunity to

depose the seven (7) new witnesses Plaintiffs disclosed in connection with Plaintiffs’

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #53). Having reviewed Defendants’ motion,

as well as supporting documents, and the submissions of Plaintiffs in opposition thereto,

the Court hereby rules as follows:

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 116-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 116 Att. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

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 (PROPOSED) - 2

The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Compel or Exclude.

The Court hereby strikes the testimony from the summary judgment proceedings

and excludes Anthony Potts, Bonnie Gordon, Emily Abbey, Jamila Gordon, Jay Gordon,

Jonathan Gordon, and Russell Flye (collectively, the “Late-Disclosed Witnesses”) from

testifying at trial.

In the alternative, within ten (10) days of the date this order is signed, Plaintiffs are

ORDERED to provide Defendants’ counsel with contact information and potential dates,

places and times for depositions of each of the Late-Disclosed Witnesses. Plaintiffs are

further ORDERED to use their best efforts to facilitate the attendance of all LateDisclosed Witnesses at their scheduled depositions.

DATED this _____ day of ____________________, 2007.

HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 116-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 2
From: Beth Havlik

To: Aagenes, Jason D.

Cc: George Pruchnofski ; Erik Boleman ; Paul Taylor Subject: FW: Cost data

Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:10:49 PM

Attachments: BART costs.pdf

Jason, Dick provided the attached background info on his calculations. He did not use site-specific costs for labor, natural gas, electricity, etc. He used a “common value,” which is typically within the range of costs for that item within the taconite industry. The one exception was he obtained a vendor quote for caustic, which was much lower than any of the site-specific costs. Except for electricity, compressed air, and lime, the costs were all lower than the site-specific costs for Utac. The lower costs were in the range of 18%-639% lower than Utac’s site-specific costs. Comparisons to Utac’s costs are shown below. The table Dick provided has the range of costs for the taconite industry and is attached.

Utac MPCA

Cost Element Site-Specific "Common

Value" Difference %

Difference Operating Labor $45.31 $37.00 -$8.31 -22%

Maintenance Labor $47.22 $40.00 -$7.22 -18% Electricity $0.04 $0.05 $0.01 22%

Natural Gas $12.02 $9.26 -$2.76 -30%

Water $2.07 $0.28 -$1.79 -639% Cooling Water $0.28 $0.08 -$0.20 -246% Compressed Air $0.32 $0.32 $0.00 0% Wastewater Disposal

Neutralization $3.13 $1.69 -$1.44 -85%

Lime $88.98 $90.00 $1.02 1%

Caustic $484.56 $240.00 -$244.56 -102%

Dick was reluctant to share the detailed math involved in his calculations. He did not prepare his calculations with elaborate documentation to facilitate an independent review. He thought that sitting down to talk through his calculations might work, but he is very busy on other projects and it would be at least a week before he would have time for such a meeting. Let me know if you would like further follow-up on Dick’s calculations.

Beth Havlik
952/832-2640 office
734/255-0269 mobile

From: Cordes, Richard [mailto:Richard.Cordes@state.mn.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:00 PM
To: Beth Havlik Subject: Cost data

Beth -

Here are the cost data that I used in my calculations. See the "Common Value" column.

Dick Cordes, P.E.Low High Unit MedianAverage"Common Value" SourceOperating Labor $32.00 $61.00 $/hr $49.15 $49.60 $37.00 Union; also among data providedMaintenance Labor $32.00 $61.00 $/hr $60.00 $53.54 $40.00 Union; also among data providedElectricity $0.04 $0.06 $/kwh $0.051 $0.049 $0.051 Selected from among data providedNatural Gas $7.41 $12.81 $/mscf $9.2575 $9.6688 $9.2575 Selected from among data providedWater $0.08 $2.07 $/mgal $0.28 $0.55 $0.28 Selected from among data providedCooling Water $0.08 $0.28 $/mgal $0.28 $0.25 $0.08 Selected from among data providedCompressed Air $0.32 $0.32 $/mscf $0.32 $0.32 $0.32 Selected from among data providedWastewater Disposal Neutralization $1.69 $3.13 $/mgal $1.69 $1.93 $1.69 Selected from among data providedLime $88.98 $91.62 $/ton $90.565 $90.352 $90.000 Vendor; also among data providedCaustic $305.96 $484.56 $/ton $305.96 $335.73 $240.00 VendorRange StatisticsStaff Engineer

Industrial Division

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

(651)296-8157 (phone)

(651)296-8717 (fax)

richard.cordes@pca.state.mn.us

<<BART costs.pdf>>
## S•IHI•••·Howellt 211- 

# 'f'h Avenue North Lewldown, Montana le417

Date: April 

### to, 2013 To: Susan 

### L Kurland Asst Secretary Aviation and International Affairs From: Sandra Howells RE: Doct?et DOT-OST

### ·1997-2605

Dear Ms. Kurland, I am writing with great concern aboutthe proposed termination of Essential Air Service funding for the Lewistown area. The population in Lewistown is made up ofabout 25% retirees. My husband and I are included in that percentage. Lewistown is a small town right in the middle of Montana and not connected to any Interstate highway. Our last remaining source of publictransportation is ourair service. The retirees here depend on this transportation mode. It is a comfort to**~now** we have the airline here, especially with the winter driving conditions in Montana. It is not·as easy for senior citizens to drive great highway distances during the winter and wewould have to do thatto getto largertravel hubs. The airline provides the option totravel to Billings or Denver for medical appointments and to connect with other airlines for furthertravel destinations. Cancer patients have flown out of Lewistown fortreatment in Denver. Please consider a reprieve tothis Orderto Show Cause and give Lewistown a chance to increase passenger numbercount.**Than~** you.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

DEANDRE H. BRADFORD,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-67M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Count 1: Possession of Cocaine Base with Intent to Distribute in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A).

Date of Detention Hearing: February 21, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth,

finds the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), there is a rebuttable presumption that

defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the community based on the nature of the pending

charges.

(2) Defendant has no ties to the Western District of Washington, or to this

community.

(3) Defendant has ongoing substance-abuse problems.

Case 2:06-cr-00062-JLR Document 16 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(4) There was a firearm present at the time of defendant’s arrest for the instant

offense.

(5) Defendant admitted that he had known the co-defendant for twenty (20) years,

and that both were Crips gang members.

(6) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will address the risk of flight and the the danger to other persons of the

community posed by defendant.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the

extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in

custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation

with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which

defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal

for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United

States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00062-JLR Document 16 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

July 8, 1954

No. 58254.

protests 204505-K, etc. (New York).

#### A. J. Van Dugteren & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
SERVED FEBRUARY 23, 2011 v-fi|§|^g ^ 

; ^ f OPERATIONS 

! ^F3 2U A o. 28 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

GOJET AIRLINES, LLC 

FAA DOCKET No. CP10CE0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0025 

IN THE MATTER OF 

GOJET AIRLINES, LLC 

FAA DOCKET No. CP10CE0004 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0190 

SECOND ORDER EXTENDING TIME 

FOR FILING BRIEFS 

For good cause shown, the motion of the Federal Aviation Administration 

("Complainant") for an extension of time to file its Rebuttal Brief in these matters is 

GRANTED. 
V 

The Post Hearing Briefing Schedule is hereby amended as follows: 

The Federal AviatitiQ^l^ll friShall file its Rebuttal Brief on or 

before March 31,2Dir* «v 

L^ijf^ociU'^^ 

IC- Goodwin 

' J -f(.^|J^'i4^fcinistrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket Nos. CP10CE0003 & 

CP10CE0004 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Mr. Richard A. Leach 

GoJet Airlines, LLC, Respondent 

11495 Navaid Road, Suite 303 

St. Louis, MO 63044 

David J. A. Hayes III, Respondent's Counsel 

Vice-President & General Counsel 

Trans States Holdings, Inc. 

11495 Navaid Road 

Bridgeton, MO 63044 

TEL: 314-222-4316 

FAX: 314-222-4311 

David B. Kessler, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Central Region, ACE-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

DOT Building 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3763 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
No. 64610.

#### Asty Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/8276, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351), and that the quantities of merchandise, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the quantities of merchandise, which were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 813 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 14, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1429) to reauthorize 
the Head Start Act, to improve program quality, to expand access, and for other 
purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```