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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8424 

To require the release to the public of all documents, reports, and other 

records relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2024 

Mr. BURCHETT (for himself, Mr. MOSKOWITZ, Mrs. LUNA, and Mr. 

BURLISON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To require the release to the public of all documents, reports, 

and other records relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘UAP Transparency 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8424 IH

1 SEC. 2. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN INFORMATION 

2 RELATING TO UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS 

3 PHENOMENA. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 270 days after the 

5 date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall di6 rect the head of each Federal department or agency in 

7 possession of documents, reports, or other records relating 

8 to unidentified anomalous phenomena to declassify and 

9 make available on a publicly available website of each such 

10 department or agency all such documents, reports, or 

11 other records. 

12 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 360 days after the date 

13 of the enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter, the 

14 President shall transmit to the Committee on Oversight 

15 and Accountability of the House of Representatives and 

16 the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

17 Affairs of the Senate a report detailing the progress to18 ward implementing subsection (a) made by each Federal 

19 department and agency. 

20 (c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘uniden21 tified anomalous phenomena’’ has the meaning given such 

22 term in section 1683 of the National Defense Authoriza23 tion Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (50 U.S.C. 3373). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Bessie White, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent.

*436Argued May 8, 1981,

before President Judge Crumlish and Judges Rogers and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three.

*Donald Gary Key ser,*for petitioner.

*Charles G. Hasson,*Assistant Attorney General, with bim *Bichard Wagner,*Chief Counsel, and *Harvey Bartle, 111,*Attorney General, for respondent.

July 9, 1981:

Opinion by

Judge Williams, Jr.,

Claimant, Bessie White, appeals from the adverse determination of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because of willful misconduct, in accordance with Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, *as amended,*43 P.S. §802(e).

Claimant last worked as a laundress for Mt. Vernon Inn Motel (employer) for approximately eight years. She was discharged on October 19, 1979 for constantly overloading the washing machine which she used to launder the sheets, towels and bedspreads *437for the motel, causing extensive maintenance and repair bills. The record shows that on one occasion the damage to the machine resulted in a repair bill of $1100.00.

Claimant does not dispute the fact that she repeatedly overloaded the machine despite her employer’s instructions to the contrary, but contends that she had good cause for doing so. It is claimant’s contention that it was necessary to overload the machine in order to get the laundry done in time for the maids to change the beds in the motel on a daily basis.

It is the well settled law of this Commonwealth that generally, an employee’s repeated direct refusal to perform an assigned duty or to follow an employer’s instructions constitutes willful misconduct. *Russell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,*36 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 499, 387 A.2d 1364 (1978). The reasonableness of the employer’s directive must be balanced against the reasonableness of the claimant’s refusal. *Hughes v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,*40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 638, 398 A.2d 236 (1979).1

We believe the employer’s rule in the instant case, not to overload the machine, in the interest of avoiding damage to the machine and costly repairs, was a reasonable one. On the other hand, claimant’s excuse that she could not otherwise get the laundry done in time cannot be deemed to constitute good cause for her deliberate violation of a reasonable employer rule. It would seem, moreover, that the choice between speed and preservation of equipment was for the employer to make, not the claimant. The Board properly concluded, therefore, that claimant’s actions rose to the level of willful misconduct.

We affirm.

*438Order,

And Now, the 9th day of July, 1981, the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated February 22, 1980, at Decision No. B-181205, is hereby affirmed.

1

*See Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Re*view, 466 Pa. 81, 87, 351 A.2d 631, 634 (1976).
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2520 LKK JFM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENNEGGER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On July 10, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of

his action, claiming he mailed objections to the July 28, 2005 findings and recommendations on

June 11, 2006, but they were not considered by the district court in its June 22, 2006 order

adopting the findings and recommendations. However, court records do not reflect a filing of

objections by plaintiff and plaintiff did not provide a copy of the objections he allegedly mailed

on June 11, 2006. 

Good cause appearing, plaintiff will be ordered to provide the court with a copy of

the objections he mailed on June 11, 2006. Upon receipt of those objections the court will

address plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. No extensions of time will be granted.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 45 Filed 07/18/06 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

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fifteen days from the date of this order,

plaintiff shall file a copy of the objections he mailed on June 11, 2006. 

DATED: July 17, 2006.

/001; jenk2520.fb

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 45 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 13,168.

#### SOMBOY v. LORING.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 318.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1822.

Parent and Child — Trespass for Loss of Service — Force—Knowledge bt Defendant.

In trespass vi et armis for taking away the plaintiff's son per quod servitium amisit, the plaiutiff must either prove actual force, or knowledge on the part of the defendant that the young man was under age.

Trespass vi et armis [by negro Sampson Somboy against Solomon Loring], for taking away the plaintiff’s son and servant per quod servitium amisit. Demurrer to the evidence.

Mr. Taylor, for defendant,

contended that the action should have been trespass on the case — not vi et armis; but that if trespass vi et armis will lie, the plaintiff must prove either actual force, or that he seduced the boy knowingly, that is. knowing the plaintiff's right to his service. But the evidence shows that he did not know it. 2 Chit. PI. 237. 23S. The father has no right to the per*789•sonal service of his son nnder age. His only right of possession of his son is for nurture and education. Upon habeas corpus, at the request of the father, if the child be of years of discretion, the court will not order him to be delivered to the father contrary to the will of the child. It is not a question of property.

Mr. Wise, contra.

In trespass the scienter is not material. Taylor v. Rainbow, 2 Hen. & M. 423; Knapp v. Salsbury, 2 Camp. 500; Bennett v. Allcott, 2 Term R. 106; 1 Chit. ■95, 124; Tullidge v. Wade, 3 Wils. 18; Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 89, 90; Weedon v. Timbrell, 5 Term R. 357; Macfadzen v. Olivant, 6 East, 387; Bae. Abr. tit. “Master and Servant.”

THE COURT

(THRÜSTON, Circuit Judge, absent)

rendered judgment for the defendant, upon the demurrer to the evidence, on the ground that it was necessary for the plaintiff. in this action of trespass vi et annis, to prove either actual force, or a knowledge on the part of the defendant that the young man was under age.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 29, 2008

Ms. Diana L. Faust

Cooper & Scully, P.C.

900 Jackson Street, Suite 100

Dallas, TX 75202

Mr. Eric D. Pearson

Heygood Orr Reyes Pearson & Bartolomei

2331 W. Northwest Hwy.

Dallas, TX 75220

RE:Case Number:  04-0575

Court of Appeals Number:  05-03-00279-CV

Trial Court Number:  DV-99-01417-L

Style:COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS, INC. D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL CENTER

v.

ATHENA HOGUE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT HOGUE, JR., DECEASED, CHRISTOPHER HOGUE, AND ROBERT HOGUE, III

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinions and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 04-0575Page 1**
#### ANTOINETTE BROZYNA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MIECZYSLAW BROZYNA, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs. Bubenstein, Albert & LouJcedis*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Abe D. Levenson*and *Mr. Cecil T. Woolsey*for the respondent.

May 14, 1968.

Denied.
No. 65570.

#### Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/10991 and 60/11338 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Prom a review of the record in these eases, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protests were, therefore, overruled.
No. 44087.

#### Protests 947368-G, etc., of M. Pressner & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 43372 tape measures were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
No. 60885.

#### Browne Vintners Co., Inc., etal. *v.*United States,

protests 241616-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460
Section 4 Submission This is an original submission: This is an amendment: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that (1) all information entered on this form is complete and accurate; and (2) any confidentiality claims are true and correct as to that information for which they have been asserted. Any knowing and willful misinterpretation is subject to criminal penalty pursuant to 18 USC 1001. Signature: Official Title: Regulatory Specialist Contact Person: Ann Marie Savini Email Address: asavini@harcros.com Date Signed: 05/28/2015 PART 1 Contact Information Submission Information Submission Type:

TestRules Form Alias: Daphnia Report Federal Register Notice: 76 FR 1067 Date Submitted: 05/28/2015 Submitter Information Company Name:

HARCROS CHEMICALS Address: 5200 SPEAKER ROAD KANSAS CITY, KS, 66106 United States Contact Person: Ann Marie Savini Phone Number: 9136217802 Email Address: asavini@harcros.com Technical Contact Information CBI

Yes: No: Company Name: HARCROS CHEMICALS Address: 5200 SPEAKER ROAD KANSAS CITY, KS, 66106 United States Contact Person: Ms Ann Marie Savini Phone Number: 9136217802 Email Address: asavini@harcros.com PART 2 Letter Of IntentSEC4 Submission Page 2

Chemical Identification CASRN:

31138-65-5 CBI Yes: No:
Chemical Name: D-gluco-heptonic acid, monosodium salt, (2.xi.)- Chemical Test Name: C1 Sponsoring Firms CBI

Yes: No: Company Name: Harcros Chemicals Address: 5200 Speaker Rd. Kansas City, KS, 66106 United States Phone Number: 9136217802 Additional Information Document Type:

Submission of Equivalence Data CBI Yes: No:
File Name: Daphnia - Submitted to EPA 5-28- 15.pdf Attachment Date: 05/28/2015

Sanitized Document Upload: N/A Chemicals Paperwork Reduction Act:The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) (44 U.S.C. 3501) provides that, when practicable, Federal organizations use electronic forms, electronic filings, and electronic signatures to conduct official business with the public. EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) (40 CFR part 3), published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2005 (70 FR 59848) (FRL-7977-1)(Ref. 2), provides that any requirement in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to submit a report directly to EPA can be satisfied with an electronic submission that meets certain conditions once the Agency published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that EPA is prepared to receive certain documents in electronic form. For more information about CROMERR, go tohttp://www.epa.gov/cromerr/

.
FTC Consumer Alert

Federal Trade Commission ● Bureau of Consumer Protection ● Office of Consumer and Business Education

Wash Daze:

Laundry Gadgets Won’t Lighten the Load

Wouldnít it be great to throw out those heavy boxes and bottles of laundry detergent and replace

them with a small, light-weight, money-saving plastic ball? Some businesses claim that their reusable

balls, rings and discs, filled with what they say is a special liquid, can take the place of laundry

detergents.

The manufacturers claim their products ìchange the molecular structure of waterî to force dirt out

of clothing. Internet ads and product distributors maintain that their laundry aids, which cost about $75

apiece, can last for thousands of loads ó and save customers hundreds of dollars in detergent costs.

Before you toss out your tried and true detergents, consider this: Tests show that these gadgets do

little more than clean out your wallet. At best, theyíre marginally better than washing clothes in hot

water alone, and not as effective as washing them with laundry detergent. At worst, the products are

completely useless.

April 1999

For More Information

ï The American Apparel and Footwear Association at www.americanapparel.org.

ï The Soap and Detergent Association at www.sdahq.org.

ï Individual soap and detergent manufacturers ó many include a toll-free number on their labels or

packaging.

ï The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and

unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop

and avoid them. To file a complaint or to get free information on consumer issues, visit

www.ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. The

FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer

Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement

agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

The Real Dirt on Getting Your Laundry Clean

ï Follow the care label instructions. Cleaning

instructions are required on most textile

clothing. They are not required on clothing

made primarily of suede or leather, footwear,

items for the head and hands ó such as hats

and gloves ó or on household items like

sheets and towels. However, many manufacturers of these items provide care information

voluntarily.

ï Pre-treat stains.

ï Sort by color. Wash whites separately;

light and medium colors together; and

brights and darks by themselves.

ï Donít overload your washer. Clothes need

room to move and enough water to carry

away the soil.

ï Follow product instructions. Use the recommended amount of detergent and other laundry

products, and follow the recommended

procedures. Some products are

added to the water before the

clothes; others, like liquid fabric

softener, are added at the start of

the rinse cycle.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




The
      undersigned, Guoshen Tu, the Chief Executive Officer of CHINA
      SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC .
      (the
“Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:




1.  The
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007
      (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.  Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operation of the Company.




IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 15th
      day of May 2007.


/s/ Guoshen
              TuGuoshen
                Tu
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and will be retained by China
      Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




The
      forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      and
      is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
      made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
      language in such filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8159 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8159

  To prohibit the breaching of federally operated dams if such breach 
 would result in the replacement energy resource occupying additional 
                    acreage, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2024

 Mr. Newhouse (for himself, Mr. Fulcher, Mr. Zinke, Mr. Rosendale, and 
  Mr. Bentz) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the breaching of federally operated dams if such breach 
 would result in the replacement energy resource occupying additional 
                    acreage, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Abandoning Inconsistent and Rash 
Environmental Solutions Act'' or the ``ACRES Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON BREACHING OF CERTAIN DAMS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army may not breach any 
federally operated dam if the energy resource intended to replace such 
dam as a result of such breach would occupy an area of land that is 
larger in acreage than the area occupied by such dam by at least 5 
percent.
    (b) Study Required.--If the Secretary considers breaching a 
federally operated dam, the Secretary, in coordination with the 
Secretary of the Interior, shall conduct a study analyzing the number 
of acres of land such dam occupies.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14696]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

25 CFR Part 151

[K00103 12/13 A3A10; 134D0102DR-DS5A300000-DR.5A311.IA000113; Docket 
ID: BIA-2013-0005]
RIN 1076-AF15

Land Acquisitions: Appeals of Land Acquisition Decisions

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) published a proposed rule 
in the Federal Register of May 29, 2013, announcing the proposed rule 
to revise a section of regulations governing decisions by the Secretary 
to approve or deny applications to acquire land in trust under 25 CFR 
part 151. This document makes corrections to the ADDRESSES section to 
provide the mail and hand delivery addresses.

DATES: Comments on this rule must be received by July 29, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Appel, Acting Director, 
Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, (202) 273-4680; 
elizabeth.appel@bia.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for Correction

    The Mail and Hand Delivery address provided under the ADDRESSES 
section did not provide the full address. In proposed rule FR Doc. 
2013-12708, published in the issue of May 29, 2013, make the following 
correction. On page 32214, third column, correct the ADDRESSES section 
to read as follows:

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

--Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. The rule is 
listed under the agency name ``Bureau of Indian Affairs.'' The rule has 
been assigned Docket ID: BIA-2013-0005.
--Email: consultation@bia.gov. Include the number 1076-AF15 in the 
subject line of the message.
--Mail: Elizabeth Appel, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative 
Action, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 
4141--MIB, Washington, DC 20240. Include the number 1076-AF15 in the 
submission.
--Hand Delivery: Elizabeth Appel, Office of Regulatory Affairs & 
Collaborative Action, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street 
NW., Mail Stop 4141-MIB, Washington, DC 20240. Include the number 1076-
AF15 in the submission.

    We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the 
comment period (see DATES) will be included in the docket for this 
rulemaking and considered. Comments sent to an address other than those 
listed above will not be included in the docket for this rulemaking.

    Dated: June 11, 2013.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2013-14696 Filed 6-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-6W-P
```