alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4477 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Second Chance Act of 2007. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4477 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Chance Reau3 thorization Act of 2024’’. 

4 SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PROGRAMS. 

5 (a) STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY DEMONSTRATION

6 PROJECTS.—Section 2976 of title I of the Omnibus Crime 

7 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10631) 

8 is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (b)— 

10 (A) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

11 the end; 

12 (B) in paragraph (8), by striking the pe13 riod at the end; and 

14 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(9) treating substance use disorders, including 

16 by providing peer recovery services, case manage17 ment, and access to overdose education and overdose 

18 reversal medications; and 

19 ‘‘(10) providing reentry housing services.’’; and 

20 (2) in subsection (o)(1), by striking ‘‘2019 

21 through 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2025 through 2029’’. 

22 (b) GRANTS FOR FAMILY-BASED SUBSTANCE ABUSE

23 TREATMENT.—Section 2926(a) of the Omnibus Crime 

24 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 

25 10595a(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘2019 through 2023’’ 

26 and inserting ‘‘2025 through 2029’’. 
3 

†S 4477 ES

1 (c) GRANT PROGRAM TO EVALUATE AND IMPROVE

2 EDUCATIONAL METHODS AT PRISONS, JAILS, AND JUVE3 NILE FACILITIES.—Section 1001(a)(28) of the Omnibus 

4 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 

5 10261(a)(28)) is amended by striking ‘‘2019, 2020, 2021, 

6 2022, and 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2025 through 2029’’. 

7 (d) CAREERS TRAINING DEMONSTRATION

8 GRANTS.—Section 115(f) of the Second Chance Act of 

9 2007 (34 U.S.C. 60511(f)) is amended by striking ‘‘2019, 

10 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2025 

11 through 2029’’. 

12 (e) OFFENDER REENTRY SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND

13 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COLLABORATION PROGRAM.—Section 

14 201(f)(1) of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (34 U.S.C. 

15 60521(f)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘2019 through 2023’’ 

16 and inserting ‘‘2025 through 2029’’. 

17 (f) COMMUNITY-BASED MENTORING AND TRANSI18 TIONAL SERVICE GRANTS TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZA19 TIONS.—Section 211(f) of the Second Chance Act of 2007 
4 

†S 4477 ES

1 (34 U.S.C. 60531(f)) is amended by striking ‘‘2019 

2 through 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2025 through 2029’’. 

Passed the Senate December 4, 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4477 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Second Chance Act of 2007.
Comments on All Five of EPA's White Papers on Methane and 

VOC Emissions in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector

Attached please find comments on all five of EPA’s white papers regarding methane and VOC emissions in the oil and natural gas 

sector, released April 15, 2014. 

We submit these comments on behalf of the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Air Task Force, and 

Earthworks. Exhibits will follow in consecutive emails (together, “Commenters ).”

Any questions or concerns should be directed to both Nathan Matthews and Andres Restrepo:

Nathan Matthews

Staff Attorney

Sierra Club Environmental Law Program

85 2nd St., Second Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 977-5695

Nathan.Matthews@sierraclub.org

Andres Restrepo

Associate Attorney

Sierra Club Environmental Law Program

50 F Street, NW, Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 650-6073

andres.restrepo@sierraclub.org

Best regards,

Natalie Spiegel

--

Natalie Spiegel

Legal Assistant

Sierra Club Environmental Law Program

85 Second Street, Second Floor

Natalie Spiegel <natalie.spiegel@sierraclub.org>

Tue 6/17/2014 12:00 AM

To:OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov>; 

Cc:Nathan Matthews <nathan.matthews@sierraclub.org>; Andres Restrepo <andres.restrepo@sierraclub.org>; 

 1 attachment

Sierra Club et al- Comments on EPA Methane White Papers FINAL.pdf; 

Comments on All Five of EPA's White Papers on Metha... - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 1 of 2

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/27/2014
San Francisco, CA 94105

natalie.spiegel@sierraclub.org

415-977-5638

Comments on All Five of EPA's White Papers on Metha... - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 2 of 2

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/27/2014
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROBERT SATTEN and LUCAS SATTEN

, Appellant s

,

v.

SUPREME TITLE & ESCROW INC.,

JASTIN STEPHENSON and BRITTNEY STEPHENSON

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D21

- 2514

[ June 30, 2022 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Kathleen McCarthy , Judge; L.T. Case No. COCE17

- 010019(51)

.

Larry A. Karns of Shrouder, Karns & Mager, P.A., Cooper City, for

appellant s

.

Kimberlee J. De Biase of Breger | De Biase, Hollywo od

, for appellees

Jastin Stephenson and Brittney Stephenson.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, L EVINE and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Request for Dismissal 

1 

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

29

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SECKU BROWN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ICG COMMUNICATIONS; and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive, 

Defendant. 

Case No. CIV-S-04-1457 FCD KJM 

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, SECKU BROWN, hereby requests a dismissal with prejudice as to his 

complaint and entire causes action for damages against Defendant, ICG 

COMMUNICATIONS. 

DATED: _____________ HENK LEONARD 

 A Professional Law Corporation 

 /s/ SHERI L. LEONARD_______

 SHERI L. LEONARD 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

 SECKU BROWN 

Robert P. Henk (147490) 

Sheri L. Leonard (173544) 

HENKLEONARD, INC. 

753 Sunrise Avenue, Suite 160 

Roseville, CA 95661 

Telephone: (916) 787-4544 

Facsimile: (916) 787-4530 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 

SECKU BROWN 

Case 2:04-cv-01457-FCD-KJM Document 14 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 2
 

Request for Dismissal 

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

29

DATED: ______________ SHEPPARD, MULIN, 

RICHTER & HAMPTON 

 /s/ OTTIS McGHEE (as authorized on 3/30/05)_

 OTTIS McGHEE 

 Attorneys for Defendant, 

 ICG COMMUNICATIONS 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 11, 2005 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES 

 DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01457-FCD-KJM Document 14 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 9510)

#### D. P. Bushnell & Company et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1211, etc.

(Decided September 25, 1959)

*Stein é Shostah*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective pax-ties hereto, as to mei-chandise covered by the Appeals for Reappraisement enumerated in the the annexed Schedule, which is incoi-porated herein:

> 1. That the merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying cases which in *E. S. Zerwekh Co. a/c D. P. Bushnell & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Abstract 58647, and D. *P. Bushnell & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Abstract 58975, following the decision of this Court in the case of *John P. Herber Co. Inc.*v. *United States,*C. D. 1519, this Court held to be subject to appraisement separately, according to the value of each class of article.

> *4932. That at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, were the unit prices for the binoculars and cases as shown in the attached Schedule of Oases, in U.S. currency, the foreign value of such or similar merchandise being no higher.

> 3. That the said Appeals for Reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases may he deemed submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise herein involved, and that such values were the unit prices for the binoculars and cases as shown in the schedule of cases attached hereto, in United States currency, in each case.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. ERIC ANTHONY GOLDBERG, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 379 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 23rd day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
(Reap. Dec. 9489)

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 865801-1/2.

(Decided August 10, 1959)

*J ohn I. Dugan*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys . for the respective parties hereto, as follows:

> 1. The American Selling Price, as that term is defined in Section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, of the merchandise involved in the appeal enumerated above for the periods herein stated, was as follows:

> Item Year American selling price

> Pas Acid_ 1954KL958, inclusive.. $3.40 per lb. less 1% net packed!

> “ Sodium... 1956_ 2.20 per lb. less 1% net packed

> *“*“_ 1957_ 2.10 per lb. less 1% net packed

> " “_ 1958_ 1.90 per lb. less 1% net packed

> 2. The above appeal is limited to the merchandise above described and is abandoned as to all other merchandise, if any, and is hereby submitted for decision.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question, and that such value for each of the involved items at the time of exportation heretofore indicated was as hereinabove set forth in the stipulation of submission.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EX-10.2






EXHIBIT 10.2




			
	 	 	 
	
	 	Press Release               






Media Contact:

Lisa McLaughlin

513-368-1860

lmclaughlin@hsr.com




Cincinnati Bell Inc. Announces Management Changes



CINCINNATI – July 10, 2008 – Cincinnati Bell Inc. (NYSE: CBB) today announced that it has named
Brian Ross as the company’s chief operating officer (COO) and Gary Wojtaszek as its new chief
financial officer (CFO). Ross previously held the position of CFO for Cincinnati Bell. Both Ross
and Wojtaszek will report to Jack Cassidy, president and chief executive officer.



As COO,
Ross will oversee the daily management and performance of sales,
marketing, and operating activities across all of Cincinnati Bell’s business segments. Wojtaszek,
as CFO, will be responsible for Cincinnati Bell’s corporate accounting, finance, treasury, and tax
functions, as well as investor relations and corporate communications.  



Since joining Cincinnati Bell in 1995 as assistant treasurer, Ross has held a variety of management
positions including vice president of finance and accounting for Cincinnati Bell Wireless and
senior vice president of finance and accounting for Cincinnati Bell Inc. He was named CFO in 2004.
Ross serves on the boards of the KnowledgeWorks Foundation, Ursuline Academy, and Diamond Fiber
Composites Inc. In addition, he is on the boards of the Cincinnati Equity Fund and the New Markets
Fund, which provide funding for the City of Cincinnati’s urban
renewal initiatives. Ross holds a bachelor’s degree in economics, mathematics and statistics from Miami
University and a master’s degree in statistics from the University of California at Berkeley.



Wojtaszek most recently served as the senior vice president, treasurer, and chief accounting
officer for the Laureate Education Corporation in Baltimore, Md., where he was responsible for
global controller and treasurer functions. Previously, he was the vice


1









 






president of finance and principal accounting officer for Agere Systems Inc., a leading
manufacturer of integrated circuits used in telecommunications and networking equipment, hard-disk
drives, and other devices. Wojtaszek holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and history from
Rutgers University and a master’s degree in finance and accounting from Columbia University.



About
Cincinnati Bell Inc.


With headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cincinnati Bell provides integrated communications
solutions—including local, long distance, data, Internet, and wireless services—that help keep
residential and business customers in Greater Cincinnati and Dayton connected with each other and
with the world.



In addition, businesses ranging in size from start-up companies to large enterprises turn to
Cincinnati Bell for efficient, scalable office communications systems as well as complex
information technology solutions including data center and managed services.



Cincinnati Bell conducts its operations through three business segments: Wireline, Wireless, and
Technology Solutions. For more information, visit
www.cincinnatibell.com.




###
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 19 - 00383 - CV JACQUELINE SUE WICKWARE, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 53rd District Court 1 Travis County, Texas Trial Court No. D - 1 - GN - 19 - 000066, Honorable Karin Crump, Presiding



### February 21 , 2020 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS , JJ. Appellant, Jacqueline Sue Wickware, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of appellee, the State of Texas. Wickware’s brief was originally due December 12, 2019 , but was not filed . We subsequently granted her two ext ensions to file a brief. By letter of January 22, 2020 , we notified Wickware that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution if her brief was not received by

1 This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Third Court of Appeals by order of the Texas Supreme Court. T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 ( West 2013 ).2

February 10 . T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, Wickware has not filed a brief or had any further communication with this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a)(1) . Per Curiam
Case No. 7,900.

#### KNOWLES v. STEWART.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 457.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1824.

Witness — Negotiable Paper — Acceptor of Bii.i. —No Consideration — Witness’ Liability Barked by Statute.

1. The acceptor of an inland bill of exchange Is a competent witness to prove that the bill was drawn by the defendant for the accommodation of the plaintiff, without any consideration, after being released by the defendant from liability for the costs of this action in case the plaintiff should recover.

[Cited in Bank of Alexandria v. Clarke, Case No. 844.]

2. The circumstance, that the act of limitations would be a bar to the plaintiff’s action against the witness upon his acceptance if the plaintiff fails in this action against the drawer, but would be no bar to an action which this defendant might bring against the witness upon his acceptance, in case this defendant should be compelled by this suit to pay the money, does not render the witness incompetent by reason of interest

Assumpsit, by the payee against the drawer of the defendant’s inland bill on William Lee. and by him accepted, payable to the plaintiff [Thomas Knowles’ administratrix] or order.

Mr. Marbury, for defendant

[William Stewart], offered William Lee, the acceptor, as a witness to prove that the bill was drawn for the accommodation of the plaintiff, without any consideration as between him and the defendant; and cited Chit. Bills (Phila. Ed. 1821) 52S, in a note.

Mr. Turner, for plaintiff,

objected that no party to a negotiable paper can be a witness to invalidate it, or rather to prove that it was originally void; and 'cited Walton v. Shelley, 1 Term R. 296, and the cases referred to in the note to Chit. Bills (Phila. Ed. 1821) 028.

Mr. Marbury, in reply,

cited Jordaine v. Lashbrooke. 7 Term It. 001, and Gaither v. Lee [Case No. 5,182], in this court, in June, 1820.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(nem. con., but THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, perhaps, doubting,) said that the doctrine of Walton v. Shelley, was overruled by Jordaine v. Lashbrooke, and this court has followed the doctrine of the latter case.

Mr. Turner then objected, that the witness was interested, .for, if the plaintiff recovers against the defendant, the defendant would have a right of action against the witness for the costs of this suit and the damages.

THE COURT thought this was a valid objection; but the defendant released the witness from his liability for those *costs.*

Mr. Turner then objected that the act of limitations would be a bar to the plaintiff’s action against the witness, the acceptor, if the plaintiff fails in the present action; but it would be no bar to the action which this defendant might bring against the witness upon his acceptance, in case this defendant *794should be compelled in this suit to pay the money.

But THE COURT overruled the objection, and permitted Mr. Lee to be sworn and examined.
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0104 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0104

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 April 2007 on the initiative by the Republic of Finland with a view to the adoption of a Council decision adjusting the basic salaries and allowances applicable to Europol staff (16333/2006 - C6-0047/2007 - 2007/0801(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0157 - 0158 *

P6_TA(2007)0104

Europol staff salaries and allowances *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 April 2007 on the initiative by the Republic of Finland with a view to the adoption of a Council decision adjusting the basic salaries and allowances applicable to Europol staff (16333/2006 — C6-0047/2007 — 2007/0801(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the initiative of the Republic of Finland (16333/2006) [1],

- having regard to the Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees [2], and in particular Article 44 thereof,

- having regard to Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0047/2007),

- having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled "Democratic Control over Europol" (COM(2002)0095),

- having regard to its recommendation of 30 May 2002 to the Council on the future development of Europol and its automatic incorporation into the institutional system of the European Union [3],

- having regard to its recommendation of 10 April 2003 to the Council on the future development of Europol [4],

- having regard to Rules 93, 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0136/2007),

1. Approves the initiative by the Republic of Finland;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Calls on the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the initiative by the Republic of Finland substantially;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and to the government of the Republic of Finland.

[1] OJ C 41, 24.2.2007, p. 3.

[2] OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 23.

[3] OJ C 187 E, 7.8.2003, p. 144.

[4] OJ C 64 E, 12.3.2004, p. 588.

--------------------------------------------------
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Damon Romanelli, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 509]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered June 16, 1993, convicting him of assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered the judgment is affirmed.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the jury to view the photographic evidence of the shotgun wound to the complainant’s leg. The photographs corroborated the trial testimony and were relevant to the issue of whether the defendant attempted to kill the complainant *(see, People v Kaiser,*204 AD2d 572) and to illustrate the seriousness of the complainant’s injuries *(see, People v Bell,*63 NY2d 796, 797). The defendant’s contention that there was reversible error because three different Judges presided over his case at different times of the proceeding is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is without merit. Paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of 22 NYCRR 200.11 allows the transfer of any action and any matter relating to an action from one Judge to another in accordance with the needs of the court.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES JOSEPH DURAN, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-1875 DFL KJM P 

vs.

JAMES POPE,

Respondent. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Petitioner, a Shasta County Jail prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 17, 2005, the court

granted respondent sixty days within which to file a response to petitioner’s habeas application. 

Respondent has not complied with the court’s order. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that respondent show cause within ten days of this order why sanctions should not

imposed for respondent’s failure to comply with this court’s May 17, 2005 order. 

DATED: October 11, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

pope1875.osc

Case 2:04-cv-01875-JKS-KJM Document 7 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 1