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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1283 

To authorize the award of a military service medal to members of the 

Armed Forces who were exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of 

participation in the testing of nuclear weapons or under other circumstances. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2017 

Mr. MARKEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the award of a military service medal to members of the Armed Forces who were exposed to ionizing 

radiation as a result of participation in the testing of 

nuclear weapons or under other circumstances. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Atomic Veterans Serv5 ice Medal Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ATOMIC VETERANS SERVICE MEDAL. 

7 (a) SERVICE MEDAL REQUIRED.—The Secretary of 

8 Defense shall design and produce a military service medal, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1283 IS

1 to be known as the ‘‘Atomic Veterans Service Medal’’, to 

2 honor retired and former members of the Armed Forces 

3 who are radiation-exposed veterans. 

4 (b) DISTRIBUTION OF MEDAL.— 

5 (1) ISSUANCE TO RETIRED AND FORMER MEM6 BERS.—At the request of a radiation-exposed vet7 eran, the Secretary of Defense shall issue the Atom8 ic Veterans Service Medal to the veteran. 

9 (2) ISSUANCE TO NEXT-OF-KIN.—In the case of 

10 a radiation-exposed veteran who is deceased, the 

11 Secretary may provide for issuance of the Atomic 

12 Veterans Service Medal to the next-of-kin of the per13 son. 

14 (3) APPLICATION.—The Secretary shall prepare 

15 and disseminate as appropriate an application by 

16 which radiation-exposed veterans and their next-of17 kin may apply to receive the Atomic Veterans Serv18 ice Medal. 

19 (c) RADIATION EXPOSED VETERAN DEFINED.—In 

20 this section, the term ‘‘radiation-exposed veteran’’ has the 

21 meaning given such term in section 1112(c)(3) of title 38, 

22 United States Code. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
SSE PAC ee

COUreTON syste

IPAC Operational Metrics for December 2022

‘Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount] % of Total Dollar Amount] Number of Transactions] _% of Total Number of Transactions|

Fiduciary (investment & Borrowing) 24,012,565,403,444 99.81% 25,308] 20.10%
Buy/Sell 37,324,723,378|
Benefits (RITS) 7,637,601,840
[Check Aftermath (TRACS) 424,557,773|
[Zero Dollar o
[Grand Total - December 2022 24,057,952,286,441 |
[Grand Total - November 2022 23,601,995,402,008|

November to December Change 455,956,884,433 |
[Percentage Change 1.9%
|Grand Total - December 2021 18, 138,417,459,070|
|Dec 2021 to Dec 2022 Change 5,919,534,827,371|

32.6%
OAR Box 1415 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

23) IV-H-4 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/15/2008 9:38:26 AM Sheet 23 of 130 

p.1 
P.2 

*./ " 

\\j'rf-H 

AM* 

Keith Barnett 

01/30/2003 04:50 PM 

To: Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov 

cc: Sally Shaver/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Penny 

Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP 

Dear Bryon: 

We have made a decision in the large parts issue for the Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP. We 

have decided to remove the capture and control requirements for large parts in open molding and 

pultrusion operations. Our definition of large parts will be parts with a volume of 400 cubic feet, or any 

dimension that exceeds 50 feet. 

The American Composites Manufacturers Association wanted a definition of 12 feet in any dimension. 

This would have excluded parts where capture and control is already demonstrated, so we could not use 

their definition. 

This change should address OMB's final concern on this rule. Therefore, because this rule has been 

determined by OMB to be nonsignificant, we are assuming that OMB will not want to review the final 

rule. Would you please confirm this. 

Please call me at 919-541-5605 if you have any questions. 

Keith W. Barnett 

US/EPA OAQPS, ESD/MICG C504-05 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

919-541-5605 

barnett.keith@epa.gov 

7 • a ': 1 

EPA AIR DO.'; <
No. 51304.

#### Protests 121076-K, etc., of Shapiro-Soronson Co. et al. (Buffalo, etc.).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          23,744
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             612
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    462,640
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         461,767
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           462,640
<LOANS>                                        501,484
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (6,535)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,038,849
<DEPOSITS>                                     853,674
<SHORT-TERM>                                    13,218
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,030
<LONG-TERM>                                     89,140
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,673
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,038,849
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 35,903
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               19,417
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   399
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              26,996
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,463
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           25,256
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,020
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 786
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 16,958
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,076
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       7,662
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,662
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.67
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,072
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,173
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,143
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      881
<RECOVERIES>                                       253
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,535
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,535
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                             CERTIFICATE 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 of Integrated Healthcare Holdings,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned,  in
the capacity and on the dates indicated below,  hereby certifies  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), as applicable, 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 result of operations
            of the Company at the dates and for the period indicated.

      This  Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed,  "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Dated:  August 15, 2005                By:  /s/ Steven R. Blake
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Steven R. Blake
                                       Chief Financial Officer
[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: Reportto Congress ... CERCLA/SARA activities [electronic resource].**
 
1997-1999| 2000
 
SuDoc Number:A 1.145:
Item Number:0010-A-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000561116
 
June 18, 2018
March 2018

IPAC Dashboard

Dollar Amount % of Total Dollar Amount Number of Transactions % of Total Number of Transactions

Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 16,348,765,896,953 99.59% 13,292 11.86%

Buy/Sell 61,532,075,546 0.37% 97,501 86.99%

Benefits (RITS) 6,376,486,056 0.04% 438 0.39%

Check Aftermath (TRACS) 45,225,863 0.00% 846 0.75%

Zero Dollar 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Grand Total - February 2018 16,416,719,684,417 100.00% 112,077 100.00%

Grand Total - January 2018 12,161,044,827,255 100.00% 101,063 100.00%

January to February Change 4,255,674,857,162 11,014

Percentage Change 35.000% 10.900%

Grand Total - February 2017 16,303,913,882,335 118,774

Feb 2017 to Feb 2018 Change 112,805,802,083 -6,697

Percentage Change 0.7% -5.6%

Volume by Transaction Type
No. 55146.

#### Leading Forwarders, Inc., and The Raffia Art, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 164786-K (A) and 134271-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# C_2016392EN.01001201.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/12

---

Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 26 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12

(Case C-438/16 P)

(2016/C 392/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic, IFP Énergies nouvelles

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12 French Republic and IFP Énergies nouvelles v European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12 French Republic and IFP Énergies nouvelles v European Commission;

French Republic and IFP Énergies nouvelles

European Commission

| — | Refer the matter back to the General Court for a fresh examination and reserve the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the matter back to the General Court for a fresh examination and reserve the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission puts forward three grounds of appeal in support of its appeal which all concern infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and more particularly errors of law concerning the manner in which it was shown that there was an advantage to an undertaking flowing from an implied unlimited guarantee arising as a result of its status.

By its first ground of appeal, the Commission is of the opinion that the General Court committed an error of interpretation as regards the concept of aid scheme and by failing to take account of the ability of a measure to confer an advantage, which involves an error of law as to the nature of the evidence to be adduced by the Commission in order to establish the existence of an advantage to an undertaking flowing from its status as a publicly owned establishment of an industrial and commercial nature (EPIC).

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law committed by the General Court as regards the scope of the simple presumption of the existence of an advantage flowing from an implied unlimited guarantee and the means by which it may be overturned.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law committed by the General Court as regards the scope of the presumption of advantage flowing from an unlimited guarantee: that presumption ought also, logically, to apply to the relationships of the undertaking to which the guarantee is granted with its suppliers and clients.

---
IC 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1083 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2017 

Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

AN ACT 

To amend section 1214 of title 5, United States Code, to 

provide for stays during a period that the Merit Systems 

Protection Board lacks a quorum. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS (1)
2 

S 1083 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. STAYS BY MSPB DURING PERIODS WITH NO 

2 QUORUM. 

3 Section 1214(b)(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code, 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(i)’’ before ‘‘The Board may’’; 

6 and 

7 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(ii) If the Board lacks the number of members ap9 pointed under section 1201 required to constitute a 

10 quorum, any remaining member of the Board who was ap11 pointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 

12 shall, upon request by the Special Counsel, extend the pe13 riod of any stay granted under subparagraph (A).’’. 

Passed the Senate May 11, 2017. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS (1)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

852 

CA 15-00121 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

MANFRED SACHS, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(CLAIM NO. 122079.) 

 

MANFRED SACHS, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (LAURA ETLINGER OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Michael E. Hudson,

J.), entered November 21, 2014. The judgment dismissed the claim

against defendant. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimant commenced this action seeking, inter alia,

damages for injuries he sustained as a result of allegedly improper

medical treatment that he received at the correctional facilities

where he was incarcerated. Contrary to claimant’s contention, the

Court of Claims properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss at the

close of claimant’s proof at trial based upon his failure to present

any expert medical evidence (see McDonald v State of New York, 13 AD3d

1199, 1200). Issues concerning whether the treatment deviated from

the accepted standard of care and whether it caused injuries are not

“matters within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons”

(Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941, 942; see Abascal v State of New York,

93 AD3d 1216, 1217, lv denied 19 NY3d 805). We reject claimant’s

contention that the claim sounds in ordinary negligence. Rather, we

conclude that the claim is substantially related to medical diagnosis

and treatment, and thus that “the action it gives rise to is by

definition one for medical malpractice” (McDonald, 13 AD3d at 1200

[internal quotation marks omitted]; see Weiner v Lenox Hill Hosp., 88

NY2d 784, 787-788). 

Entered: October 7, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
No. P68/206.

protest 66/4065 (New York).

#### A.C. Compacting Presses, Inc. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of parts of high pressure presses, dedicated to use therewith, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Arnhold*Ceramics, *Inc.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 416, C.D. 2668), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2017424EN.01000901.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Vion Livestock BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Case C-383/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets - Protection of animals during transport - Export refunds - Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Obligation to keep up to date a copy of the journey log until the arrival of the animals at the place of the first unloading in the third country of final destination - Recovery of amounts over-paid))

(2017/C 424/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vion Livestock BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, read in conjunction with Articles 3(1) and (2) and 2(2) of Regulation No 817/2010, and with points 3, 7 and 8 of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, must be interpreted as meaning that repayment of export refunds under Regulation No 817/2010 may be required where the transporter of bovine animals has not kept a copy of the journey log provided for in Annex II to Regulation No 1/2005 up to date until the place of the first unloading in the third country of final destination.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: CRIMINAL ACTION

v. :

: NO. 04-828

PAUL PENNANT :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant Paul 

Pennant’s pro se Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis (Document No. 81) and the Government’s 

Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED for the reasons set forth in 

the accompanying Memorandum Opinion. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez

_______________________

Juan R. Sánchez, C.J. 

Case 2:04-cr-00828-JS Document 85 Filed 11/17/23 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 34.2
 
 KPMG LLPAon CenterSuite 5500200E. Randolph StreetChicago, IL 60601-6436 
 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 continuations to perfect the security interest unless instructed to do so by other parties in the transaction agreement. With respect to servicing criterion 1122(d)(4)(iii), the Company has determined that there were no activities
            performed during the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 with respect to the Platform, because there were no occurrences of events that would require the Company to perform such activities.  Management
 
   KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a
                          member firm of
                      the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated
                          with
                      KPMG International Limited, a private English company
                          limited by guarantee.
 
 Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation (C&DI) 200.06, Vendors Engaged by Servicers
  
 2
Before the Third Division,

February 18, 1949

No. 52888.

#### Fish Distributors Cooperative Association, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 132451-K (Cleveland).

*247Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the testimony showed that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence to establish that at the time of the importation the fish did not weigh as much as the weigher reported. Inasmuch as the landed net weights returned by the United States weigher and adopted by the collector as a basis for his assessment of duty were not established to be erroneous, or to represent weights other than the actual weights, the protest was overruled. *Downing & Co.*v. *United States*(11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 310, T. D. 39128) cited.
# C_2015337EN.01003301.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/33

---

Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Othman v Council

(Case T-464/15)

(2015/C 337/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
   (1).

Makhlouf

Council

1

---

(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.

1

---