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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8967 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8967

 To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Army to enter into a 
contract, partnership, or grant with a non-profit organization for the 
    purpose of providing financial support for the maintenance and 
   sustainment of infrastructure and facilities at military service 
memorials and museums that highlight the role of women in the military.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2024

Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia (for herself and Ms. Houlahan) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Army to enter into a 
contract, partnership, or grant with a non-profit organization for the 
    purpose of providing financial support for the maintenance and 
   sustainment of infrastructure and facilities at military service 
memorials and museums that highlight the role of women in the military.

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

SECTION 1. SERVICEWOMEN'S COMMEMORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS.

    Section 362(b) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283; 10 U.S.C. 
7771 note prec.) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``2021'' and inserting ``2025''; and
            (2) by striking ``$3,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$1,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00459

- CR

Keith Demont McCuin

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1139277D)

February 18, 2016

Per Curiam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dism issed for

want of jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8902 

To make certain individuals ineligible to receive any Federal financial aid 

under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2024 

Mr. PFLUGER (for himself, Mr. BALDERSON, Mr. BACON, Mr. EDWARDS, and 

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To make certain individuals ineligible to receive any Federal 

financial aid under title IV of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965. 

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 ‘‘Freeze Aid For Stu5 dent Assaulters Act of 2024’’ or as the ‘‘FAFSA Act of 

6 2024’’. 

7 SEC. 2. IN GENERAL. 

8 (a) TERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR TITLE IV AS9 SISTANCE.—Beginning with the first award year that beVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:51 Aug 09, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8902.IH H8902

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8902 IH

1 gins after the date of the enactment of the Freeze Aid 

2 For Student Assaulters Act of 2024, an individual shall 

3 not be eligible to receive any grant, loan (other than a 

4 loan described in subsection (b)), or work assistance under 

5 title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

6 1070 et seq.) and shall repay, in accordance with sub7 section (b), the sum of the amounts of any grant received 

8 under such title, if the individual has been convicted of 

9 a criminal offense— 

10 (1) of assault against a police officer; or 

11 (2) of rioting, the elements of which may in12 clude— 

13 (A) inciting a riot; 

14 (B) organizing, promoting, encouraging, 

15 participating in, or carrying on a riot; 

16 (C) committing any act of violence in fur17 therance of a riot; or 

18 (D) aiding or abetting any person in incit19 ing or participating in or carrying on a riot or 

20 committing any act of violence in furtherance of 

21 a riot. 

22 (b) CONVERSION OF GRANTS TO LOANS.— 

23 (1) IN GENERAL.—If an individual who is sub24 ject to the termination of eligibility described in sub25 section (a) has received any grants under title IV of 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8902 IH

1 the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 

2 et seq.) for a program of study in which the indi3 vidual is enrolled as of the date on which the crimi4 nal offense occurred, such grant shall be treated as 

5 a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loan under 

6 part D of such title, and shall be subject to repay7 ment, together with interest thereon accruing from 

8 the date of the grant award. 

9 (2) NO REPAYMENT ASSISTANCE.—Such loans 

10 may not be eligible for any loan forgiveness, can11 cellation, discharge, or reduction programs under the 

12 Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et 

13 seq.), any other provision of law, or any administra14 tive action or program. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Put your taxes behind you with lightning speed: electronic tax filing

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Put your taxes behind you with lightning speed: electronic tax filing 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Internal Revenue Service 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Rev. 11-91. 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Series Title        
                    -  Publication ; 1432A; Publication (United States. Internal Revenue Service) ; 1432 A. 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  136 × 28 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ricoh Aficio 3228 Scanner at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu. 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  026153741.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
# C_2007155EN.01001901.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/19

---

Conduct of the activities of the Court of First Instance between 1 and 17 September 2007

(2007/C 155/35)

At its Plenary Meeting of 6 June 2007, the Court of First Instance took note of the fact that, by reason of the Court vacation, the taking of the oath before the Court of Justice by four new Members of the Court of First Instance will take place only after the end of that vacation. Consequently, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, until the new Members of the Court of First Instance take up their duties:

| — | the President of the Court of First Instance will be Mr Vesterdorf; |
| --- | --- |

—

the President of the Court of First Instance will be Mr Vesterdorf;

| — | the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges will be Mr Jaeger, Mr Pirrung, Mr Vilaras and Mr Legal, Presidents of Chambers; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges will be Mr Jaeger, Mr Pirrung, Mr Vilaras and Mr Legal, Presidents of Chambers;

| — | the President of the First Chamber will be Mr Cooke, President of Chamber; |
| --- | --- |

—

the President of the First Chamber will be Mr Cooke, President of Chamber;

| — | the decision of 14 January 2006 (OJ 2006 C 10, p. 19) on the composition of the Appeal Chamber and the assignment of cases to that Chamber, the decision of 5 July 2006 (OJ 2006 C 190, p. 14) on the composition of the Grand Chamber and the designation of the Judge replacing the President of the Court of First Instance as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures and the decision of 15 January 2007 (OJ 2007 C 42, p. 22) on the assignment of Judges to Chambers and the criteria for the assignment of cases will continue to apply. |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision of 14 January 2006 (OJ 2006 C 10, p. 19) on the composition of the Appeal Chamber and the assignment of cases to that Chamber, the decision of 5 July 2006 (OJ 2006 C 190, p. 14) on the composition of the Grand Chamber and the designation of the Judge replacing the President of the Court of First Instance as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures and the decision of 15 January 2007 (OJ 2007 C 42, p. 22) on the assignment of Judges to Chambers and the criteria for the assignment of cases will continue to apply.

---
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

** **

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatements No. 333-175496 and No. 333-175493 on Form S-8 of Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation and Subsidiary of our reportdated March 31, 2014, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements which appear in this Annual Report on Form10-K of Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation and Subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2013.

 

/s/McGladrey LLP

 

 

New Haven, Connecticut

March 31, 2014
|    |                                                                                               |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Vera Bradley, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                      |
|----------------------|
|                      |  |  |
| Date: March 30, 2016 |   | /s/ Robert Wallstrom |
|                 |   | Robert Wallstrom |
|                 |   | Chief Executive Officer |
A90A0125.

#### LAWRENCE v. THE STATE.

(393 SE2d 475)

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Hubert Lawrence, was convicted of child molestation. The victim was the 11-year-old daughter of another member of the church attended by Lawrence; the alleged incident of fondling the child’s breasts and vagina took place in Lawrence’s double-wide trailer following their return from a brief ride in his recreational vehicle. On appeal he attacks the admission of certain evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Held:

1. The victim told her mother about the incident as soon as she got home, but the victim’s mother did not report the matter to the police until several weeks later. At the request of the investigating officer, the victim’s mother allowed the police to record a telephone conversation she had with Lawrence, in which Lawrence indicated that he had only fondled the child. The jury, assisted by a transcript, listened to the recording during the trial, and reheard the recording after beginning its deliberations.

At trial Lawrence objected to the initial admission and playing of the recording on the basis that the State, by not showing that the recording was a good reproduction of the conversation, had failed to lay a proper foundation. He also contended that replaying the record*321ing for the jury was unduly prejudicial.

Decided April 3, 1990.

*S. Fenn Little, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Jack O. Partain III, District Attorney, Kermit N. McManus, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Lawrence attacks the admissibility of the recording under OCGA § 16-11-66, concerning consensual interception of telephone messages, for the first time on appeal, and we thus will not consider it. *Ortiz v. State,*189 Ga. App. 428 (375 SE2d 891) (1988). Granting the jury’s request to rehear the recording was within the trial court’s discretion, and Lawrence has shown no special circumstances making the decision to replay an abuse of that discretion. *Sexton v. State,*189 Ga. App. 12 (374 SE2d 824) (1988).

2. Following his arrest, Lawrence was advised of his *Miranda*rights. He made no request for counsel, but denied fondling the victim. When confronted by the fact of the recorded telephone conversation with the victim’s mother, however, Lawrence admitted the incident. Lawrence contends that this statement was improperly admitted into evidence, because he had not fully understood what was taking place during the interrogation. The interrogating officers, however, testified that Lawrence had been aware of the situation and had freely and voluntarily given the statement.

The trial court’s decision on the admissibility of a statement will be upheld on appeal unless the trial court’s factual and credibility findings are clearly erroneous. *Crumbsy v. State,*188 Ga. App. 286 (372 SE2d 669) (1988). We do not find the trial court’s findings in this case to be clearly erroneous.

3. The evidence authorized a rational trier of fact to find Lawrence guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of child molestation as charged. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope and Beasley, JJ., concur.*
Where do we go from here?

• Evaluating Pathways for Conceptual 

Models for Frac Fluid Release

• Evaluating Chemicals for Relative Risk of 

Release and Potential Harm

• Evaluating Geochemical Processes and 

Assessing Relative Risk

• Quantifying Chemicals in Potential 

Sources

• Designing Monitoring
Evaluating Pathways for 

Conceptual Models for Frac Fluid 

Release

• Assign relative risk of occurrence

• Assign relative risk of mass migration

• Prioritize type of contamination risk

• ???
Evaluating Chemicals for Relative 

Risk of Release and Potential 

Harm

• Toxicity

• Concentration in frac fluid vs toxicity levels

• Mobility

• Persistence

• Aquifer characteristics

• ???
Evaluating Geochemical Impacts of 

Sources

• Methane induced anaerobic conditions

• TDS/Brine

• NORM

• Frac Fluid
Quantifying Amount of Chemicals 

in Potential Sources

• Frac Fluid

• Methane

• Brine

• NORM
Designing Monitoring

• Priority analytes

• Analytical methods

• Potential for false positives

• Timing of analysis

• Frequency of analysis

• Rationale for expanding analysis
Model for Future Workshops

• Have each preceding group provide 

notes/summary of workshop discussion

• Provide direction with respect to material 

discussed

• Provide direction with respect to priorities 

for each subject area/theme`
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM E. JOHNSON, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:11-CV-0020 

 : 

 v. : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 : 

THE SCOTTS COMPANY : Magistrate Judge Deavers 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 This Court, in its Order of December 21, 2011, granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6), because the Complaint failed to allege 

facts sufficient to support a plausible claim of racial discrimination. (Dkt. 20.) In that same 

Order, pursuant to its discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) to “freely give leave” for a party 

to amend pleadings “when justice so requires,” the Court granted Plaintiff leave to remedy the 

deficiencies in his Complaint, “if they can be so remedied.” Id. 

Plaintiff has neglected to attempt to amend his Complaint in the interim months. Having 

had ample opportunity to amend his Complaint, but nevertheless having failed to do, the Court 

hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, for the reasons stated in its prior 

Order. The case is dismissed. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley 

DATED: June 29, 2012

Case: 2:11-cv-00020-ALM-EPD Doc #: 22 Filed: 06/29/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 47483.

#### Protest 33676-K of Ciba Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel 29 percent of Silvatol I, and 57 percent of Lyofix DEC pat., were held taxable at 3 cents per pound under section 701, Revenue Act of 1936, as claimed.
# C_2007199EN.01004102.xml

| 25.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/41

---

Appeal brought on 25 June 2007 by Petrus Kerstens against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 25 April 2007 in Case F-59/06, Kerstens v Commission

(Case T-222/07 P)

(2007/C 199/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Petrus J. F. Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by C. Mourato, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | annul the contested order; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested order;

| — | refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal before another chamber; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal before another chamber;

| — | award costs as of right. |
| --- | --- |

—

award costs as of right.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In his appeal, the applicant seeks the annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing as clearly inadmissible the action whereby he sought the annulment of, first, his career development report for 2004 and, second, the decision of the appointing authority rejecting his complaint against that career development report.

In support of his appeal, the applicant raises three pleas in law.

The first alleges infringement of Article 7(1) and (3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, infringement of Article 20 of that Statute, and procedural irregularity adversely affecting the interests of the applicant. He argues that recourse to Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to the procedure before the Civil Service Tribunal, on the basis of which the contested order was made, could not take place after two exchanges of memoranda and an exchange of notes of observations, that is to say where the ordinary procedure applied. In those circumstances, the applicant argues, the Court could not rule on inadmissibility before the oral procedure.

mutatis mutandis

The second plea, put forward in the alternative, alleges infringement of Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and irregularity in the procedure following from it. In the applicant's submission, the contested order could not have been issued on the basis of that provision without following the procedure and in particular without the oral phase, given that the advocate general had not been heard and the inadmissibility claimed was not obvious.

The third plea, raised further in the alternative, alleges infringement of the principle of the right to a fair hearing, in that the Civil Service Tribunal impliedly held that one of the annexes to the rejoinder constituted proof that the procedure in question was inadmissible, before the applicant had even had a chance to give explanations concerning that document.

---
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

PHILLIP SESSLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

vs.

 CASE NO. C2-11-348

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE TERENCE P. KEMP

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or

trial.

Pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed March 6, 2012, JUDGMENT is hereby

entered DISMISSING this case.

Date: March 6, 2012 JAMES BONINI, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-00348-EAS-TPK Doc #: 41 Filed: 03/06/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>