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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 340 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2008 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

To make technical corrections in the enrollment of the bill 

H.R. 493. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 493 

3 (to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic informa4 tion with respect to health insurance and employment) the 

5 Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the fol6 lowing technical corrections: 

7 (1) In section 104(d)— 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

HCON 340 RDS 

1 (A) in paragraph (2), strike ‘‘June 30, 

2 2008’’ and insert ‘‘October 31, 2008’’; 

3 (B) in paragraph (3), strike ‘‘October 1, 

4 2008’’ and insert ‘‘July 1, 2009’’; and 

5 (C) in paragraph (4)— 

6 (i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), strike 

7 ‘‘October 1, 2008’’ and insert ‘‘July 1, 

8 2009’’; and 

9 (ii) in subparagraph (B)(ii)— 

10 (I) strike ‘‘in 2008’’ and insert 

11 ‘‘in 2009’’; and 

12 (II) strike ‘‘July 1, 2008’’ and 

13 insert ‘‘July 1, 2009’’. 

14 (2) In section 202(b)(6), strike ‘‘law enforce15 ment’’ and all that follows through ‘‘and requests’’ 

16 and insert ‘‘law enforcement purposes as a forensic 

17 laboratory or for purposes of human remains identi18 fication, and requests’’. 

19 (3) In section 205(b)(6), strike ‘‘law enforce20 ment’’ and all that follows through ‘‘and requests’’ 

21 and insert ‘‘law enforcement purposes as a forensic 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

HCON 340 RDS 

1 laboratory or for purposes of human remains identifica2 tion, and requests’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 1, 2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### Bernie Doherty *v.*United States

No. 6471.

Entry No. 21.

Invoice dated Montreal, Canada, October 11, 1945.

Certified October 12, 1945.

Entered at Ashtabula, Ohio, October 22, 1945.

(Decided October 28, 1946)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Howard Haraioitz,*special attorney), ■for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement covering -certain knitting needles imported from Canada and entered at the port of Ashtabula, Ohio. The needles in question were invoiced at $1.30 per dozen packages and entered at that value plus 8 per centum sales tax, all in Canadian funds. They were appraised at $1.90, Canadian funds, sales tax and packing included.

When the case was called for trial the plaintiff appeared personally and conceded the correctness of the appraisement and requested submission of the case on the-official record, in which request counsel for ■the defendant joined.

Upon the record so made I find that the value of the merchandise in issue is that returned by the appraiser, and judgment will issue accordingly.
SERVED: SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AIRLINE TRANSPORT PROFESSIONALS 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0288 

ORDER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

In view of the impending prospective lapse in FY2014 appropriations funding 

government operations as of September 30,2013, the Depmiment has directed that all employees 

in the Office of Hearings be fnrloughed in the event of such a lapse. Accordingly, in the event of 

such a lapse, the Oflice of Hearings will close on Tuesday, October 1, 2013, for the duration of 

the shutdown. 

Any deadline, whether set by regulation or previous order, is suspended m1d extended for 

the dnration of the shutdown. 

SO ORDERED. 

Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative La Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0001 

Jeffrey R. Ludwig, Respondent's Counsel 

Ludwig & Associates, P.A. 

5150 Belfort RoadS., Building 500 

Jacksonville. FL 32256 

TEL: 904-281-0145 

FAX: 904-493-0384 

Gerald A. Ellis, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southem Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30230 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 (Ell-310) 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0288 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the follovving address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W .. Wilbur Wright Building---Suite 2Wl 000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
```

[106th Congress Public Law 350]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ350.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 1361]]

Public Law 106-350
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To revise the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 
     and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 24, 2000 -  [H.R. 3632]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Golden Gate 
National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act of 2000.>> 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. <<NOTE: 16 USC 460bb note.>> 

    This Act may be cited as the ``Golden Gate National Recreation Area 
Boundary Adjustment Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO THE GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA.

    Section 2(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the Golden 
Gate National Recreation Area in the State of California, and for other 
purposes'' (16 U.S.C. 460bb-1(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following: ``The recreation area shall also include the lands generally 
depicted on the map entitled `Additions to Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area', numbered NPS-80,076, and dated July 2000/ PWR-
PLRPC.''.

    Approved October 24, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3632 (S. 2051):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-825 (Comm. on Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 106-376 accompanying S. 2051 (Comm. on Energy and 
Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            Sept. 12, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 5, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Person & Weidhorn, et al. *v.*United States

No. 6790.

Entry No. 752521, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, April 15, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 28, 1942, etc.

(Decided January 22, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davisdon*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the 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 here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
### 1



### Assessing	the	Effect	of	Five	Gasoline	Properties	on	Exhaust	Emissions	from	Light****

**Duty	Vehicles	certified	to	Tier -**  **2	Standards Analysis**  **of	Data	from	EPA	Phase	3 (EPAct/V2/E**  **- 89)**  

## Appendix **L .4** 

**Model	Fitting	Information	for** 

## Formaldehyde **(Bag	2)**

This appendix summarizes model fitting for Bag-2 Formaldehyde . Model - fitting techniques and approaches are summarized in Section 8 .7 . Features of the data and modeling for this compound are listed below. Media contamination: YES No. measurements: 63 No. censored values: 1 Modeling approach: MIXED MODEL Estimated Dependent Variable model: YES

### 2 **Models fit for Bag -**  **2 Formaldehyde**  Model term Notation Model Full FM1 1 FM2 FM3 Null model 2 etOH Z

e ● ● ● ● × Arom Z

a ● × T50 Z

5 ● ● × T90 Z

9 ● ● ● × 1 Indicates “Full minus 1,” etc. 2 Indicates model with intercept only, no fuel parameters. 

### Fitting history for Bag**- 2**  **Formaldehyde –**  **with “ F** **M 2**  **” selected as best fit model.** 

### Fit Parameters Test with respect to Full Test with respect to Previous Model 

### Model p -

2 ln L BIC 1 

### Dev. 1 

### d Pr>χ 2 

### Dev. d Pr>χ 2 Full 5 70.37 81.64 F M1 4 70.47 80.12 0.09329 1 0.76 F M2 3 70.61 78.66 0.2340 2 0.87 0.1467 1 0.70 F M3 2 73.29 79.73 2.922 3 0.40 2.682 1 0.10 Null mo del 1 76.19 81.02 5.821 4 0.21 2.900 1 0.09 1 A lower value indicates a better fit. 1 The deviation is the difference in the - 2loglik statistics for the nested and reference models, respectively, per 

### Error! Reference source not **found.**

. 

### Coefficients and Type**- III Tests of Effect for the**  **Full and Best** **- Fit Models**  **– Formaldehyde**  **(Bag 2**  **).** Effect Full Model Best-Fit Model ( F M 2 ) Estimate Std.Err. d.f. t-value Pr> t Estimate Std.Err. d.f. t-value Pr> t Intercept - 8.6574 0.1372 5.01 - 63.10 <0.00001 - 8.6574 0.1375 5.01 - 62.97 <0.00001 Z e 0.08456 0.05937 58.04 1.424 0.16 0.07804 0.05011 58.08 1.56 0.125 Z a 0.01575 0.05154 58.05 0.306 0.76 Z 5 0.01863 0.05815 58.03 0.320 0.75 Z 9 - 0.08138 0.05031 58.16 - 1.62 0.11 - 0.08322 - 0.8322 58.15 - 1.65 0.103 2 veh 

###  0.08205 0.08239 2  

###  0.3762 0.3776
[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.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****Fuel cell connection.Portuguese**
 
2004:Nov03-Jan | Fev-Abr | Mai-Jul | Ago-Out
2005:Nov04-Jan | Feb-Abr | Mai-Jul | Ago-Out | Nov_Fev06
2006:Mar-Mai | Jun-Ago | Sep_Nov| Dez-Fev07
2007:Mar-Mai | Jun-Ago | Dez
2008:Jan-Fev | Mar-Mai | Jun-Ago
 
SuDoc:E 12.19:
Item Number:0430-S-09 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000638761
 
October 24, 2017
August 12, 1970

No. 70-56

#### Johnny D. Barksdale, PVT, U. S. Marine Corps v United States.

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. United States v Snyder, 18 USCMA 480, 40 CMR 192 (1969).
Before the Third Division,

April 24, 1951

No. 55486.

#### Wing On Tong & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 630837-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the apricot kernels the subject of Abstract 34104, the claim at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 762 was sustained.
# C_2015262EN.01000501.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Campobasso (Italy) lodged on 11 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Gianpaolo Paoletti and Others

(Case C-218/15)

(2015/C 262/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Campobasso

Party/parties to the main proceedings

Party/parties to the main proceedings

Gianpaolo Paoletti, Umberto Castaldi, Domenico Faricelli, Antonio Angelucci, Mauro Angelucci, Antonio D’Ovidio, Camillo Volpe, Alfredo Viali, Giampaolo Canzano, Raffaele Di Giovanni, Antonio Della Valle

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 7 of the ECHR, Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed on 7 December 2000 in Nice, and Article 6 [TEU] be interpreted as meaning that Romania’s accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007 had the effect of abolishing the criminal offence provided for in and punishable under Article 12 of Legislative Decree No 286/1998 (consolidated text [on immigration]) relating to the facilitating of the immigration and stay by Romanian nationals in the territory of the Italian State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 7 of the ECHR, Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed on 7 December 2000 in Nice, and Article 6 [TEU] be interpreted as meaning that Romania’s accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007 had the effect of abolishing the criminal offence provided for in and punishable under Article 12 of Legislative Decree No 286/1998 (consolidated text [on immigration]) relating to the facilitating of the immigration and stay by Romanian nationals in the territory of the Italian State?

| 2. | Must those provisions be interpreted as precluding a Member State from applying the principle of benign retroactivity (in mitius) in respect of persons who, before 1 January 2007 (or other subsequent date on which the treaty took full effect), the date on which Romania’s accession to the European Union took effect, were responsible for breach of Article 12 of Legislative Decree No 286/1998 (consolidated text on immigration) in that they facilitated the immigration of Romanian nationals, which ceased to be an offence as from 1 January 2007? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must those provisions be interpreted as precluding a Member State from applying the principle of benign retroactivity (in mitius) in respect of persons who, before 1 January 2007 (or other subsequent date on which the treaty took full effect), the date on which Romania’s accession to the European Union took effect, were responsible for breach of Article 12 of Legislative Decree No 286/1998 (consolidated text on immigration) in that they facilitated the immigration of Romanian nationals, which ceased to be an offence as from 1 January 2007?

in mitius

---
Exhibit 10.44.2

ADDENDUM TO PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST

January
22, 2001
Emeryville, California

This
addendum incorporates by reference and supplements the certain legal document titled "Promissory Note Secured By Deed of Trust" (hereinafter "Note") between Ask Jeeves, Inc. a
Delaware corporation ("Company") and Enrique T. Salem and Marcella M. Salem (collectively "Borrower") signed and executed February 29, 2000. The parties agree to amend this Note
as follows:



| |  | /s/ Enrique M. SalemBORROWER:Enrique M. Salem
| |  | ---------------------------------------------
| |  |                                              
| |  | /s/ Marcela M. SalemBORROWER:Marcela M. Salem

---

QuickLinks
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 98-50454

Summary Calendar

_______________________

CHARLES DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS AT HUGHES UNIT;

T. WORTHINGTON, Medical Doctor,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(W-96-CV-429)

_________________________________________________________________

August 4, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Davis complains of the dismissal of his

complaint against a Hughes Unit prison doctor, T. Worthington, who

allegedly assaulted Davis while Davis was on crutches and used

excessive force against him. The district court, approving the

recommendation of a magistrate judge, dismissed the action for

failure to state a claim and as time-barred. Because we believe 
2

the limitations issue to be dispositive, we do not discuss whether

Davis stated a claim for constitutional injury.

Davis filed his complaint in September 1993 against

prison officials of the Wynne Unit of TDC. In November, 1993,

Davis alleged in an affidavit that the Hughes Unit prison doctor,

T. Worthington had used excessive force against him. Allegations

against Wynne Unit officials were disposed of by the district court

for the Eastern District of Texas, while Davis’s claims against

Hughes Unit officials, such as Worthington, were transferred to the

Western District of Texas. In an amended complaint filed on

February 3, 1997, Davis finally named Worthington as a defendant

and alleged that Worthington assaulted him on July 27, 1993. 

Because the statute of limitations for section 1983

claims is two years, Davis’s complaint is time-barred unless, as he

contends, his amended complaint related back to the date of the

original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(c). Like the

district court, we find that the complaint did not relate back.

Davis’s first complaint neither named Worthington as a defendant

nor set out any claims against him. Although Worthington was named

in an affidavit in a November 1993 pleading, this document, filed

solely at court, did not generate a summons against Worthington or

inform Worthington in any way that he had been made a party to the

lawsuit. Rule 15(c)(3) allows an amended pleading to relate back

when, inter alia, the party brought in by the amendment received

notice of the institution of the action within a particular time,

and the party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake
3

concerning identity, the action would have been brought against

that party. As this test is not fulfilled, Davis’s amended

complaint could not relate back and cure the statute of limitations

problem concerning Dr. Worthington. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6225

WALTER JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus PARKER EVATT, Commissioner S.C.D.C.; FRANKIE RICKENBAKER, Warden; EVELYN WARDLAW, Social Worker; FRANK HARRISON, Chief; PAUL BOLLMAN, Captain; SOUTH CAR OLINA PAROLE AND PARDON BOARD; MR. SMITH, Classification Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-398-21BD) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas McKay, Jr., Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, MCKAY, HENRY & FOSTER, P.A., Columbia, SouthCarolina; Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). Themagistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district courtorder based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Orpiano v. Johnson , 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice.Accordingly, we deny Appellant's request for production of documents and affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Brooks Brothers *v.*United States

No. 6457.

Entry No. 714397, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, October 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 16, 1943, etc.

(Decided October 24, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the 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 here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 54296.

#### Toa Kigyo Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 82685- K, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

When the protests were called for hearing there was no appearance by plaintiff and the court directed that an order of submission be entered. Following *T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc.*v. *United States*(18 Cust. Ct. 25, C. D. 1040), affirmed in *Same*v. *Same*(36 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 391), the protests were overruled.
SCPW-20-0000556 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

IN THE MATTER OF ALEX RODRIGUEZ AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE CUSTODY OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I, Petitioners.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ( By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and McKenna, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Ginoza, assigned by reason of vacancy, with Wilson, J., dissenting 1 )

Upon consideration of petitioner Alex Rodriguez’s motion for reconsideration, filed on October 5, 2020, and the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 8, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

1 A dissent by Wilson, J., is forthcoming. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000556 08-OCT-2020 11:56 AM