alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Restrooms on Defense Supply Center Richmond are going green

DLA Installation Management Richmond Virginia

                RICHMOND, Va.  –              
In the interest of environmental stewardship and reducing the number of service calls for sewer line repair, backups and maintenance, all restrooms on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, are being upgraded with biodegradable paper towels.

Maintenance staff assigned to Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond have already begun replacing paper towel dispensers around DSCR, starting in the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Operations Center (Bldg. 46). Roughly 50% of all paper towel dispensers on DSCR must be replaced to accommodate the new product. The task is expected to take approximately six months.

Paper towel dispensers that don’t require replacement are already being filled with the new biodegradable paper product.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Installation Management Richmond VirginiaDefense Supply Center Richmond Virginia
No. 99-7828.

#### Sayakhom *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
------------------------------------------------------------
1200 Smith Street, Suite 3040, Houston, Texas  77002 o FAX
(713) 739-6112 o (713) 739-1000





          CONSENT OF H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.



The Board of Directors
XCL, Ltd.
110 Rue Jean Lafitte
Lafayette, Louisiana 70508


Gentlemen:

We  hereby  consent  to the use of the name  H.J.  Gruy  and
Associates, Inc. and references to H.J. Gruy and Associates,
Inc.  and to the references to our letter report dated April
6, 1999 (Proved Reserves, Zhao Dong Block) prepared for XCL,
Ltd. in the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 of XCL, Ltd.



     Yours very truly,

     H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.


          /s/ James H. Hartsock
     By: __________________________
     James H. Hartsock, Phd, PE
     Executive Vice President


Houston, Texas
April 9, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2238 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2238

 To amend the Commodity Exchange Act to require a regulation to limit 
    the aggregate positions of nontraditional bona fide hedgers in 
                    petroleum and related products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 27, 2012

   Mr. Pryor introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Commodity Exchange Act to require a regulation to limit 
    the aggregate positions of nontraditional bona fide hedgers in 
                    petroleum and related products.

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

SECTION 1. POSITION LIMITS FOR PETROLEUM AND RELATED PRODUCTS.

    Section 4a(a)(6) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6a(a)(6)) 
is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (C) as 
        clauses (i) through (iii), respectively, and indenting 
        appropriately;
            (2) by striking ``The Commission shall'' and inserting the 
        following:
                    ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Petroleum and related products.--The 
                Commission shall, by regulation, establish limits on 
                the aggregate number or amount of positions in 
                contracts for petroleum or related products that may be 
                held by any person, including any group or class of 
                traders, for each month across contracts described in 
                clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (A), so 
                that--
                            ``(i) the short position for traditional 
                        bona fide hedgers in the aggregate is not less 
                        than 50 percent; and
                            ``(ii) the long position for traditional 
                        bona fide hedgers in the aggregate is not less 
                        than 50 percent.''.
                                 <all>
```
Before the First Division,

June 22, 1961

No. 65823.

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States,

protests 58/25230 and 59/30866 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dish mops similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64603, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### The Akron, Canton & Youngstown Rd. Co. et al. *v.*The Public Utilities Commission et al. The Hocking Valley Ry. Co. *v.*The Public Utilities Commission.

*Railroad freight rates*— Interstate *and intrastate*jurisdiction— *Horizontal increase by interstate commerce commission*— Re*duction of intrastate rates by public utilities commission.*

(Nos. 17444 and 17455

Decided December 5, 1922.)

Error to the Public Utilities Commission.

*Mr. W. J. Stevenson*and *Mr. William A.' Eggers,*for plaintiffs in error in case No. 17444.

*Mr. J ohm G. Price,*attorney general, and *Mr. E. E. Corn,*for defendants in error in case No. 17444.

*Mr. Beecher W. Waltermire,*for The American Vitrified Products Company, in case No. 17444.

*Messrs. Wilson & Rector,*for plaintiff in error in ca.se No. 17455.

*Mr. J ohm G. Price,*attorney general, and *Mr. E. E. Corn,*for defendant in error in case No. 17455.

*Mr. Beecher W. Waltermire,*for The New York Coal Company in case No. 17455.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the order of the said public utilities commission of Ohio be, and the same is hereby, affirmed on authority of cause No. 17269, *Akron & Barberton Belt Rd. Co.*v. *Public Utilities Commission,*and cause No. 17276, *656*Cincinnati & Northern Rd. Co.*v. *Public Utilities Commission,*105 Ohio St., 553.

*Order affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Hough, Wanamaker, Robinson* Junes, Matthias and Clark, JJ., cononr.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________

)

SEAN QUALLS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 08-311 (CKK) 

)

ISAAC FULWOOD, JR. et al., )

)

Defendants. )

___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against the Chairman and members of the United States

Parole Commission, asserting that he was entitled to, but did not receive, a parole decision based

on the 1987 parole guidelines. As relief, the plaintiff sought (1) a declaratory judgment that the

defendants’ application of the 2000 parole guidelines violated the ex post facto clause, (2) an

order directing the Commission to conduct within 45 days a new parole hearing using the 1987

parole guidelines. Plaintiff also requested this Court to retain jurisdiction to ensure compliance

with the order sought.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as moot, stating that the

Commission had scheduled another parole hearing for the plaintiff on June 24, 2009, at which it

would apply the 1987 parole guidelines. The plaintiff opposed the motion, because the hearing

had not yet occurred. Subsequently, the defendants confirmed that on June 24, 2009, plaintiff

had a parole hearing using the 1987 guidelines. See Defs.’ Reply at 1. A show cause order

issued, directing the plaintiff to state why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. In his

response to the show cause order, the plaintiff relies on Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053,
 Plaintiff’s argument reflects the incorrect presumption that “if A, then B” is the same as

1

“only if A, then B.” Obviously, the condition “if” is not the equivalent of the condition “only if.”

-2-

1057 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (where a prisoner’s subsequent release on parole mooted his complaint for

injunctive and declaratory relief regarding his parole eligibility date), to argue that the instant

complaint cannot be mooted unless the plaintiff is released on parole. See Pl.’s Response ¶ 4. 

He also states that his request for a new parole hearing was “but one of several issues presented

upon which relief was requested.” Id. 

Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. His interpretation of the cited case law is based on

faulty logic and is incorrect. The instant complaint sought a new parole hearing using the 1987 1

guidelines, and plaintiff has realized that relief. Because the superseding parole hearing rendered

the prior one ineffective, there is no longer a need for a declaratory judgment regarding the 2000

guidelines. There is also no need to retain jurisdiction to ensure compliance with any order. 

Therefore, because the plaintiff has realized all available relief, the complaint is moot and will be

dismissed. 

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. 

 /s/ 

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY

Date: August 14, 2009 United States District Judge
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2334 

To reduce temporarily the duty on lithium ion electrical storage batteries. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 23, 2012 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on lithium ion electrical 

storage batteries. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LITHIUM ION ELECTRICAL STORAGE BAT4 TERIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Lithium ion electric storage 

batteries, certified by the importer for use in hybrid electric motor vehicles (provided 

for in subheading 

8507.80.80) ........................... 2.4% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2334 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2408 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2408

 To suspend temporarily the duty on lenses for digital cameras with a 
            focal length 55 mm or more but not over 300 mm.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2012

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on lenses for digital cameras with a 
            focal length 55 mm or more but not over 300 mm.

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

SECTION 1. LENSES FOR DIGITAL CAMERAS WITH A FOCAL LENGTH 55 MM OR MORE 
              BUT NOT OVER 300 MM.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Lenses for digital  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        cameras with a                                                     31/2015.......
                        focal length 55
                        mm or more but
                        not over 300 mm
                        inclusive, not
                        exceeding 590
                        grams in weight
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        9002.11.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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
  In
connection with the Report of China Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Qinan Ji, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
  (1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:
November 9, 2009
 
 /s/ Qinan JiQinan
      Ji, Principal Executive
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM LL&E ROYALTY TRUST 
1996 ANNUAL REPORT AND FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE 
TO SUCH 1996 ANNUAL REPORT AND FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          16,543
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,543
<PP&E>                                      83,490,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (79,074,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,432,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,432,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,432,543
<SALES>                                     16,335,605
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,335,605
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               523,859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,811,746
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         15,811,746
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                15,810,105
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .833
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .833
        

</TABLE>
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12

- 1934

_____________

MD MALL ASSOCIATES, LLC

Trading as MacDade Mall Associates, L.P.,

Appellant,

v.

CSX TRAN SPORTATION , INC.

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 11

- cv

- 4068)

District Judge: Hon. Juan R. Sanchez

_______________

Argued

January 8, 20132 Before: RENDELL, FISHE R, and JORDAN

, Circuit

Judges

.

(Filed : April 30, 2013)

_______________

Marc B. Kaplin [ARGUED]

Pamela M. Tobin

Kaplin, Stewart, Meloff, Reiter & Stein

910 Harvest Drive

P.O. Box 3037

Blue Bell, PA 19422

Counsel for Appellant

Richard P. Cal darone

Andrew Tauber [ARGUED]

Mayer Brown

1999 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Heather M. Gamache

John E. Young, IV

Flynn & Wirkus

1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd.

- #312

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Counsel for Appellee

_______________3 ORDER AMEN DING OPINION

_______________

JORDAN, Circuit Judge

.

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the above

- captioned

opinion be amended as follows:

At the top of page 2 1

, in the sentence beginning “The

railroad‟s argument”, “in Strozyk ” shall be deleted

, and , in

the cita tion that follows, “ Stoz yk , 358 F.3d at 273 ” shall be

deleted and replaced with “ See supra at 18

- 19 ”.

On page 22, following the cite to “ Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co

., ... (E.D. Mo. 2010)” insert: “ rev’d on other grounds , 690

F.3d 884, 893

- 94 (8 th Cir. 2012) (re versing as premature the

grant of summary judgment because the d istrict court had

raised FRSA regulations for the first time sua spont e and did

not give plaintiff an opportunity to „submit[] evidence of

FRSA violations‟ or to separately evaluate whether ra ilroad

breached duty imposed by FRSA)”.

/s/ Kent A. Jordan

Circuit Judge

DATED: May 30, 2013

PDB/cc: All Counsel of Record
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

479 

CA 10-02353 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

RICHARD MULLEN, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(CLAIM NO. 116118.) 

RICHARD MULLEN, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATE H. NEPVEU OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Renee Forgensi

Minarik, J.), entered August 13, 2010. The order granted the motion

of defendant to dismiss the amended claim and dismissed the amended

claim. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: April 29, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
!(

!(

!(

Hiwassee Dam

3

2

3

1314 QR

1314 QR

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet /

Apalachia Reservoir

Land Management Plan

Tile: C11

Jul 24, 2008

\\alismurphy\home\mprlm\projects\landplan\Maps\Apalachia_land_plan\Apalachia_land_plan_for_Web.mxd
#### In re Dorothy Gray ELMORE v. STATE of Alabama. Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SC 1850.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 9, 1976.

As Corrected On Denial of Rehearing Aug. 6, 1976.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and William A. Davis, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, petitioner.

Donald E. Brutkiewicz, Mobile, for respondent.

EMBRY, Justice.

In this case, Dorothy Gray Elmore, was indicted, tried and found guilty by a jury, of driving while intoxicated. However, the jury neither assessed a fine nor declined to fix one. The trial court assessed one of $150 and in lieu of payment sentenced defendant to jail for a term of fifty days.

On appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded for new trial, Ala.Cr.App., 348 So.2d 262. It held:

> “Title 15, Section 335, Code of Alabama 1940, provides as follows:

> “ ‘In prosecution by indictment, the jury shall fix and determine the amount of the fine; and no judge shall remit or reduce the fine so fixed, unless he spreads his reasons for so doing in full on the minutes of the court.’

> “Under this section the trial court had no authority to impose a fine.

> “If the jury fails to impose or assess a fine, the trial judge is without authority *265to do so. *Carpenter v. State,*50 Ala.App. 543, 280 So.2d 804.”

The case is before us to review that decision. We reverse and remand for revision of the opinion in order for the Court of Criminal Appeals to remand to the trial court for proper sentence. This is not to say, however, that the authority to grant probation or suspend sentence is not within the discretion of the trial court. Code of Ala., Tit. 42, § 19; *Ex parte Smith,*252 Ala. 415, 41 So.2d 570.

It is true, if the jury fails to impose or assess a fine the trial court is without authority to do so; also, it is without authority to impose a sentence to be served in lieu of payment of the illegally imposed fine. However, where the jury finds the defendant guilty, and fails to assess a fine, imposition of punishment is left to the court under the terms of Code of Ala., Tit. 36, § 2. *Grace v. State,*57 Ala.App. 586, 329 So.2d 643 (1976); *Winn*v. *State,*38 Ala.App. 156, 79 So.2d 75 (1954); Code of Ala., Tit. 15, § 336.

REVERSED AND REMANDED IN ACCORD WITH THIS OPINION.

HEFLIN, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.

ON REHEARING

By reversing and remanding this case we do not foreclose the right of the Court of Criminal Appeals to consider the various contentions of the appellant regarding other errors she alleges occurred in the trial of this action; not heretofore addressed by the Court of Criminal Appeals.

OPINION CORRECTED.

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED.

HEFLIN, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.