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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1897 

To amend Public Law 101–377 to revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg 

National Military Park to include the Gettysburg Train Station, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2011 

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 101–377 to revise the boundaries 

of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include the 

Gettysburg Train Station, 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 ‘‘Gettysburg National 

5 Military Park Expansion Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK EXPAN7 SION. 

8 (a) GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK

9 BOUNDARY REVISION.—Section 1 of Public Law 101–377 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1897 IS

1 (16 U.S.C. 430g–4) is amended by adding at the end the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(d) ADDITIONAL LAND.—In addition to the land de4 scribed in subsections (a) and (b), the park shall include— 

5 ‘‘(1) the property commonly known as the ‘Get6 tysburg Train Station’ (including land located in 

7 close proximity to the Gettysburg Train Station) 

8 that is— 

9 ‘‘(A) located in the Borough of Gettysburg; 

10 and 

11 ‘‘(B) depicted on the map entitled ‘Gettys12 burg National Military Park, Proposed Bound13 ary’, numbered 305/80,045, and dated Sep14 tember 2008; and 

15 ‘‘(2) the property that is— 

16 ‘‘(A) located adjacent to Plum Run in 

17 Cumberland Township; and 

18 ‘‘(B) depicted on the map entitled ‘Gettys19 burg National Military Park, Proposed Bound20 ary Addition’, numbered 305/80,046, and dated 

21 February 2009.’’. 

22 (b) ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF LAND.—Section 

23 2(a) of Public Law 101–377 (16 U.S.C. 430g–5(a)) is 

24 amended— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 1897 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; and 

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

5 ‘‘(2) ACQUISITION OF PUBLICLY OWNED

6 LAND.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara8 graph (B), the Secretary may acquire only by 

9 purchase from a willing seller publicly owned 

10 property that is located within the property de11 scribed in section 1(d)(1) if the Secretary deter12 mines that efforts to acquire the property with13 out cost have been exhausted. 

14 ‘‘(B) EMINENT DOMAIN.—The Secretary 

15 may not acquire by eminent domain property 

16 that is located within the property described in 

17 section 1(d)(1).’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 40471.

#### Protests 893378-G, etc., of Hy. Knefely & Son (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Kraft*v. *United States*(T. D. 47955) the protests were sustained.
# C_2015279EN.01000301.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 June 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-263/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Reduction of financial assistance - Method of calculation by extrapolation - Procedure of adoption of the decision by the European Commission - Failure to comply with the time-limit laid down - Consequences))

(2015/C 279/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Spain v Commission (T-65/10, T-113/10 and T-138/10, EU:T:2013:93); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Spain v Commission (T-65/10, T-113/10 and T-138/10, EU:T:2013:93);

| 2) | Annuls Commission Decisions C(2009) 9270 of 30 November 2009, C(2009) 10678 of 23 December 2009 and C(2010) 337 of 28 January 2010 reducing the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted respectively under the operational programme ‘Andalusia’ falling within Objective 1 (1994-1999) pursuant to Commission Decision C(94) 3456 of 9 December 1994, the operational programme ‘Basque Country’ falling within Objective 2 (1997-1999) pursuant to Commission Decision C(1998) 121 of 5 February 1998, and the operational programme ‘Comunidad Valenciana’ falling within Objective 1 (1994-1999) pursuant to Commission Decision C(1994) 3043/6 of 25 November 1994; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Annuls Commission Decisions C(2009) 9270 of 30 November 2009, C(2009) 10678 of 23 December 2009 and C(2010) 337 of 28 January 2010 reducing the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted respectively under the operational programme ‘Andalusia’ falling within Objective 1 (1994-1999) pursuant to Commission Decision C(94) 3456 of 9 December 1994, the operational programme ‘Basque Country’ falling within Objective 2 (1997-1999) pursuant to Commission Decision C(1998) 121 of 5 February 1998, and the operational programme ‘Comunidad Valenciana’ falling within Objective 1 (1994-1999) pursuant to Commission Decision C(1994) 3043/6 of 25 November 1994;

| 3) | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Spain and to bear its own costs, both in the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Spain and to bear its own costs, both in the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

---
Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm








We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statements (No. 333-113852 on Form S-8, No.
333-137501 on Form S-8, No. 333-124278 on Form S-3, No. 333-148649 onFormS-3, No. 333-151775 on Form S-3, No. 333-160142 onFormS-8,No. 333-164030 on Form S-3, and No. 333-171408 on Form
S-3)of CapLease, Inc. of our reportdated February18,2011, relating to our audits of the
consolidated financial statements, the financial statement schedules and internal control over financial
reporting,which appearsin the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of CapLease, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2010.








/s/ McGladrey & Pullen,
LLP








New York, New York


February18,2011
Jul y 18 , 2011 Mr. Jeffrey Teland e r U. S . EPA Mailroom (D243 -0 2) Office of AQPS 

## ACME J BRICK**~fit:/ !**  / cf.9 / Certified Ma il No.: 7009 1 680 0000 93 1 6 6420

109 T.W. A le xander Drive Research Trian g l e Park , NC 277 11 Re: ICR Test Re s ults Acme Brick - E l g in Plant (E P N 1 6) Dear Mr. Telander: Pl ease find e nclo se d a fla s h dri ve containin g the e l ectronic files of th e t es t result s performed a t the a bov e referenced fac ilit y . I f you have any qu es tion s , pl ease c a ll me at 8 17-8 70 - 8348. 

# p:;::__ L__ Jason Pence E HS Manager Acme Brick Compan y

cc: Susan Miller - Brick Indu stry Assoc i a ti o n

ACME BRICK COMP ANY P .O . Bo x 425 - Fo rt Wo rth , Te x as 76 10 1 - T E L : 8 17 1332 -410 1
# C_2015138EN.01000402.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA

(Case C-143/13) (1)

1

((Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer - Article 4(2) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject-matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and remuneration as long as they are in plain intelligible language - Terms including a ‘risk charge’ charged by the lender and authorising it, under certain conditions, unilaterally to alter the interest rate))

(2015/C 138/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei

Applicants:

Defendant: SC Volksbank România SA

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, ‘main subject-matter of the contract’ and ‘adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplies in exchange, on the other’ do not, in principle, cover the types of terms in the credit agreements concluded between a professional and consumers such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which, on one hand, allow, under certain conditions, the lender unilaterally to alter the interest rate and, on the other hand, provide for a ‘risk charge’ applied by the lender. However, it is for the referring court to verify that classification of those contractual terms having regard to the nature, general scheme and stipulations of the agreements concerned and the legal and factual context of which they form part.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
No. 54972.

#### Ashear Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 145279-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6975

JOE D. BARFIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus T. R. CARROLL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:06-hc-02213-FL) Submitted: October 29, 2007 Decided: December 3, 2007 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe D. Barfield, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Joe D. Barfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barfield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting of the aforementioned Special Emphasis Panel. 

*Time and Date:*                         12 p.m.-4 p.m., June 18, 2007 (Closed).                     

*Place:*                         Teleconference.                     

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                     

*Matters to be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of research grant applications in response to FOA IP07-007, “Evaluation of Vaccination Reminder/Recall Systems for Adolescent Patients,” FOA IP07-010, “Strategies to Reach the “Unreachable” Through Immunization Registries,” and FOA IP07-012, “Using Provider Reminder/Recall to Enhance Up-to-Date Coverage of 18-Month Olds.”                     

*For Further Information Contact:*                         Trudy Messmer, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, 1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop  C-19, Atlanta, GA 30333, telephone (404) 639-3770.                     

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                     

Dated: May 10, 2007. 

Elaine L. Baker, 

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E7-9498 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ COLLECTIVE EDGE, LLC, FERG'S SPORTS BAR & GRILL, INC., CARLOS LOPEZ, JR., COLLEEN A. LOPEZ, Plaintiffs

- Cross

- Appellants

v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellant

______________________ 2024

- 2095 , 24

- 2154

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20

- cv
- 00034

- AOB, 1:20

- cv
- 00048

- AOB, 1:20

- cv
00159

- AOB , Judge Armando O. Bonilla.

______________________ O R D E R The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). Case: 24-2095 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 09/18/2024C OLLECTIVE E DGE , LLC V

. US 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

September 18, 2024 Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 18, 2024 Case: 24-2095 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 09/18/2024
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2578

___________

Carpenters District Council of Kansas *

City Pension Fund, a Trust Fund; Terry *

L. Davis, Trustee of the Carpenters *

District Council of Kansas City Pension *

Fund, Kansas City and Vicinity Welfare *

Fund, Kansas City and Vicinity *

Apprenticeship and Training Fund; *

Jeffrey Chaikin, Trustee of the *

Carpenters District Council of Kansas *

City Pension Fund and Kansas City and *

Vicinity Welfare Fund; Carpenters *

District Council of Kansas City and *

Vicinity Welfare Fund, a Trust Fund; *

Carpenters District Council of Kansas * Appeal from the United States

City and Vicinity Apprenticeship and * District Court for the Western

Training Fund, a Trust Fund; Joseph E. * District of Missouri.

Pink, Trustee of the Carpenters District *

Council of Kansas City and Vicinity * [UNPUBLISHED]

Apprenticeship and Training Fund, *

*

Appellees, *

*

v. *

*

Graceland Industries, Inc., *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 5, 2005

Filed: August 11, 2005

___________
*

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

-2-

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Carpenters District Council of Kansas City Pension Fund and others (plaintiffs)

sued Graceland Industries (Graceland), seeking an accounting and unpaid fringe

benefit contributions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. See 29

U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1145. The district court*

 entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs after

Graceland failed to oppose plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion and failed to

respond to the court’s show-cause order. The district court then denied Graceland’s

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, and Graceland appeals. 

Having reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the district

court’s refusal to set aside its order granting summary judgment. See Ivy v.

Kimbrough, 115 F.3d 550, 552 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review). The purpose of

Rule 60(b) relief is not to afford the parties an opportunity to reargue the merits of

their case. Graceland’s inability to oppose summary judgment, and counsel’s

deficiencies, are not grounds for Rule 60(b) relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Inman

v. Am. Home Furniture Placement, Inc., 120 F.3d 117, 119 (8th Cir. 1997). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
OPERATIONS 

2010 OCT ~ u A q: 21 

CITY nfiMODKSTO 

Jim liitlt'iiinir 

•: l.n ! Sit:. ; 

P < ) l]. \ (•),.' 

"•I. /,'.-,. C.l 9-,>:i> 

^ 'J \-^ t ->s^C» /-'..-\ 

t t:i.;it 

h.f.!trjn,!h 

AuQusl 11,2010 

Ray LaHood. Secrelary of Transportation 

U.S. Depanmsn' of Transponation 

•100 7" Street. SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Small Communily Air Service Development Program 

Modesto City-County Airport. Modesto, CA 

Dear Mr. Sscretar>'. 

I am w.'iiing to share my strong support for the Modesto City-County Airport's effons to acquire 

grant funds through the Federal Depanmeni of Transportation's Small Community Air Service 

Program. These funds are intended to improve air service to our community, by assisting an 

airline io add direct daily passenger air service between Modesto (MOD) and Ponland or Seattle. 

Existing passenger service at MOD consists of flights to and from San Francisco's SFO airport. 

Unfortunately, these flights are frequently delayed due to SFO v/eather concerns or air traffic 

congestion, resulting in travelers' reluctance to depend upon them for timely connections (see 

attachment). This level of service does not meet the needs of the area's air travelers. I believe 

that there is high demand for air service to other hubs v^itii more reliable flights and additional 

travel options. As congestion on area roadways and gasoline prices both increase, air travelers 

are burdened by lengthy drives to distant airpons. The addition of a new hub will provide a 

v/elcome solution for those in our community, as well as travelers from outlying areas of the 

central valley and the foothills region. 

Commercial air service at Modesto City-County Airpon plays an important role in providing 

suppo.T to business, government, education, and leisure travel to and from our area. Future 

gro'A/th and vitality in the Modesto community depends, in part on the airports ability to meet the 

needs of existing local businesses, as v.'ell as companies considering the Central Valley as a 

location for Jheir operations. Ease of travel to and from our communily via direct daily passenger 

service is an imponani element in laying the groundv^ork for the community's future. 

I am confident you v/ill agree than an investment in this project at Modesto City-County Airport v./ill 

provide great benefits for travelers throughout the entire Central Valley. This is a project that has 

strong community suppon, and with your help, can provide substantial benefits to the community. 

For these reasons, I urge you to strongly consider Modesto City-County Airport as a worthy 

recipient of the Small Community Air Service Development Program grant. 

Sincerely 

JIM RIDENOUR, f-.layor 

Ctti^i'ii I'ml ! 

Modesto City-County Airport - Smoii Community Air Service Development Grant - August 2010 50
(Reap. Dec. 9888)

#### Haddad *&*Sons, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 4697.

(Decided December 29, 1960)

*James G. McGoldricJc*for tbe plaintiff.

*George OocliranDoub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

MoliasoN, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement upon stipulation—

> (1) That the merchandise covered by the appeal to reappraisement herein, consists of footwear imported from Japan, and that such articles are identified in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof;

> (2) That export value, as defined in section 402a(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis of value for the merchandise herein;

> (3) That such statutory export value for the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement herein, is the invoiced unit price, ex-factory, net, packing included;

> (4) That there is no higher foreign value for the herein merchandise.

Upon tbe agreed facts, I find that export value, as defined in section 402a (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise identified in schedule “A,” attached hereto, and that such value is the invoiced unit price, ex-factory, net, packing included.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

Schedule A

The manufacturer and seller of the merchandise herein is:

Hayakawa Rubber Co., Ltd.

Eukuyama, Japan

R59/11369 (Export Date: March 17, 1959)

Norfolk Collector’s No. 925

Norfolk Entry No. 4697 (April 28, 1959)

Rubber Shoes — Sponge Sandals (Zori)

SR^0140 — men’s sizes — 300 dozen pairs — invoiced at US $2.60 per dozen pair, ex-faetory, net, packed.