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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1785 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1785

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code (relating to the 
 vessel hull design protection), to clarify the distinction between a 
   hull and a deck, to provide factors for the determination of the 
protectability of a revised design, to provide guidance for assessments 
           of substantial similarity, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Vessel Hull Design Protection 
Amendments of 2005''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNS PROTECTED.

    Section 1301(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by 
striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
            ``(2) Vessel features.--The design of a vessel hull or 
        deck, including a plug or mold, is subject to protection under 
        this chapter, notwithstanding section 1302(4).''.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    Section 1301(b) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``vessel hull, including 
        a plug or mold,'' and inserting ``vessel hull or deck, 
        including a plug or mold,'';
            (2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
            ``(4) A `hull' is the exterior frame or body of a vessel, 
        exclusive of the deck, superstructure, masts, sails, yards, 
        rigging, hardware, fixtures, and other attachments.''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) A `deck' is the horizontal surface of a vessel that 
        covers the hull, including exterior cabin and cockpit surfaces, 
        and exclusive of masts, sails, yards, rigging, hardware, 
        fixtures, and other attachments.''.

            Passed the Senate November 18, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1785

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code (relating to the 
 vessel hull design protection), to clarify the distinction between a 
   hull and a deck, to provide factors for the determination of the 
protectability of a revised design, to provide guidance for assessments 
           of substantial similarity, and for other purposes.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46492-46493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23353]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5886-8]


Proposed Settlement Agreement; Ozone Nonattainment Areas; 
Determination of Air Quality for Phoenix, AZ

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act 
(``Act''), as

[[Page 46493]]

amended, 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
settlement agreement concerning litigation instituted against the 
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') by the Arizona Center for Law 
in the Public Interest. The lawsuit concerns EPA's alleged failure to 
perform a nondiscretionary duty with respect to determining whether the 
Phoenix, Arizona ozone nonattainment area has timely attained the 
national ambient air quality standard (``NAAQS'') for ozone, and if the 
area has not, to publish that determination in the Federal Register. 
The settlement commits EPA to a schedule for making the determination 
as to whether the area attained the NAAQS, except that EPA is not 
obligated to make this determination if, instead, EPA determines that 
the area is eligible for an attainment date extension. If EPA 
determines that Phoenix failed to attain the ozone NAAQS as of the end 
of 1996, Phoenix will be reclassified, by operation of law, from a 
Moderate ozone nonattainment area to a Serious nonattainment area.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication 
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to 
the settlement agreement. EPA or the Department of Justice may withhold 
or withdraw consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the 
comments disclose facts or circumstances that indicate that such 
consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with 
the requirements of the Act.
    Copies of the settlement agreement are available from Phyllis 
Cochran, Air and Radiation Division (2344), Office of General Counsel, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460, (202) 260-7606. Written comments should be sent to Howard J. 
Hoffman at the above address and must be submitted on or before October 
3, 1997.

    Dated: August 21, 1997.
Scott C. Fulton,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-23353 Filed 9-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6565-50-M
#### WOODCREST ARMS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Jan D. BRAGG, Arthur F. Glaeser and Patricia L. Glaeser, his wife; Arthur F. Glaeser, General Contractor; and Helmet Rocks d/b/a Pompano Iron Works, Appellees.

No. 69-405.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Dec. 11, 1969.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Stewart F. LaMotte, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
—— as hh 9) Is a Pde

~

—S— i So - oo —-  —-— ony ive ee yay ea —_ —— may DT FRAY 0 WO a
UNITED STA OLOGICAL SURVEY
‘ =_ “ 4 cl °
CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS
Ge } QUATERNARY
| UNCONFORMITY
/
Trp| Tre
Tred
UNCONFORMITY > Miocene
Tve
Tpe é
Tva Ti
‘ ‘
eT TAR
j a TERTIARY
7 & Oligocene
Twi
Twn
Tbv Twl
J aa
| UNCONFORMITY 4
Pp } PALEOZOIC
‘ —
é
:
“2
a:
$:
st
zi
:
$
EAVKS
a
2
: @ : an
Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1971 Geology mapped in 1970-79
SCALE 1:24.000 ,
———— % x) — 2 MILE .
a —— an *,
£ J 1 KILOMETER
[—— ——— =: ____]
CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
QUADRANGLE LOCATIONS —
z6 :
al 5 10,000ft
3000m- 10,000Ft- | Zo [ 5 = Jenni
=
4 Zz *
4 ol. L
cla
2600 z| j L2600
w| o
a
4 go00e 4 L sooo |
2200 4 | L2200
ig00 4 8000 - a seeo Ligoo
N TH
4 \ a
4 INDIAN PEAK ak L
CAULDRON INNER/\ _ oy Ce
1400 4 RING - FAULT / = a Ls a Ligoo
+ 4000 = +l 4000 L

’

|
zle
zig — 10,000 ft
3000 m5 10,000 ft5 ale ee -3000m
nie
4 . ala L
4 z L
=a=/{<
2600 4 elt | 2600
st
J 8000 o | 8090 |
2200 4 i L 2200
| ® re pre-Twr he |
1800 -| 6000 | ecks “hy 6000 LL is00
4 INDIAN PEAK L
Sk, CAULDRON NF
1400 4 Titer : RING- FAULT mee
J 4000 | a | 4000 L

GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE PINTO SPRING AND PART OF THE ATCHISON CREEK QUADRANGLES, BEAVER AND IRON COUNTIES, UTAH
By

S. Kerry Grant and Myron G. Best
1979
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

          STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

         I, Peter C. Chang, the chief executive officer of Alliance Fiber Optic
Products, Inc. (the "Company"), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my
knowledge,

         (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

         (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                             /s/ Peter C. Chang
                                             -------------------------------
                                             Peter C. Chang

                                             May 9, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc. and will be retained by Alliance
Fiber Optic Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and StockholdersNeoPharm, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Nos. 333-03725, 333-66365, and 333-104586) on Form S-8and (No. 333-109340) on Form S-3 of NeoPharm, Inc. of our reports dated March16, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of NeoPharm, Inc. asof December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity, and cash flows, for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2006, and related financial statement schedule,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports appear in theDecember 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of NeoPharm, Inc.

Our report on the financial statements refers to the Company’sadoption of the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.123(R), *Share-Based Payment*, as of January 1,2006. 

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, IllinoisMarch 16, 2007

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TERRENCE FAUCHER :

Plaintiff, :

: Docket No.: 3:15-cv-01630

v. : (Magistrate Judge

: Saporito)

:

LEIGHTON FORD, INC., et al, :

Defendants. :

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of October, 2016, upon consideration of the

motion to dismiss (Doc. 22) filed by the defendant Lehighton Water

Authority, and pursuant to the Memorandum filed this date, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion to dismiss (Doc. 22) is DENIED.

2. The defendant Lehighton Water Authority shall file an answer

to the amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this

Order.

s/ Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.

JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: October 6, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01630-JFS Document 31 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 1
# DLA Distribution Commanding Officer's Veterans Day Message 2018

/ Published Nov. 11, 2018

DLA Distribution Teammates,

This year, Veterans Day marks the Centennial Commemoration of the end of World War I on November 11, 1918, “The War to End All Wars”.   On this day, we pay singular tribute to the men and women who continue to place their lives on the line around the globe.  They represent the essence of our great nation...courage, duty, character, sacrifice.  

To all our Veterans – thank you.  Thank you for everything you’ve done for our country.  You are among the best our nation has to offer.  Among our Distribution family are thousands of heroes who have served, some dedicating a major part of their life to military service.  Even though some may no longer wear the uniform, by performing our critical mission, they continue to build upon the success founded in the sacrifice of generations who served before and will serve in the future.

Ms. Gonzales and I would like to thank each of you for your selfless service, your commitment to duty, your integrity and your loyalty to the DLA Distribution family.  I am proud to be part of this great team that works tirelessly every day to support the many men and women, both military and civilian, deployed worldwide...there are none better!

Enjoy the upcoming long holiday weekend, incorporate safety into everything you do, and remember to keep our service members and DoD Civilians deployed in harm's way in your thoughts and prayers.  

Happy Veterans Day and HOOYAH Distribution!

Kevin JonesRDML, SC, USN
254 La. 13

#### Mrs. George R. TODD et al. v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al.

No. 49795.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 9, 1969.

In re: Mrs. George R. Todd et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 219 So.2d 538.

Writ refused. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | To      my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations      of Atlantic BancGroup, Inc., as of and for the period covered by the      report. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  November 13,      2008 | /s/ David L.      Young           |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                    | David      L. Young               |
|                                    | Executive      Vice President,    |
|                                    | Chief      Financial Officer, and |
|                                    | Corporate      Secretary          |
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43729-43730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21723]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5483-3]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared July 21, 1997 Through July 
25, 1997 pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under 
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA 
comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 
564-7167.
    An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 4, 1997 (62 FR 
16154).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-DOI-K40222-TT Rating EO2, Palau Compact Road 
Construction, Implementation, Funding, Republic of Palau. Babeldaob 
Island, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections due to wetland and 
water quality impacts associated with developing quarry or coral dredge 
sites. EPA requested additional information to demonstrate compliance 
with the Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) Guidelines including mitigation to 
compensate for the fill placed in 21 acres of wetlands.
    ERP No. D-NPS-E61038-TN Rating LO, Stones River National 
Battlefield General Management Plan and Development Concept Plan, 
Implementation, Ruthford County, TN.
    Summary: EPA expressed lack of objections for the proposed action.
    ERP No. D-OSM-A01102-00 Rating EC2, Valid Existing Rights--Proposed 
Revisions to the Permanent Program Regulations Implementing Section 
522(E) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and 
Proposed Rulemaking Clarifying the Applicability of Section 522(E) to 
Subsidence from Underground Mining.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the air quality 
analysis, potential adverse impacts to water quality and mitigation 
measures, adequate bonding, design and reclamation issues, indirect and 
cumulative impacts and environmental justice and suggests these be 
addressed in the final EIS.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-UAF-K11076-CA, Airborne Laser (ABL) Phase Program 
Definition and Risk Reduction Phase, Proposed Locations: Home Base 
Edwards Air Force Base; Diagnostic Test Range-White Sands Missile 
Range, NM; and Expanded Area Test Range-Western Range (Vandenberg Air 
Force Base and Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division), 
CA and NM.
    Summary: EPA previous concerns have been addressed, therefore EPA 
had no objection to the action as proposed.


[[Page 43730]]


    Dated: August 12, 1997.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 97-21723 Filed 8-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```

[111th Congress Public Law 270]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 2851]]

Public Law 111-270
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the Vietnam 
 Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc. to establish a Vietnam Veterans Memorial 
 visitor center, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 12, 2010 -  [H.R. 
                                3689]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR VIETNAM MEMORIAL 
                              VISITOR CENTER.

    Section 6(b) of Public Law 96-297 (16 U.S.C. 431 note) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 
        ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
            ``(5) any reference in section 8903(e) of title 40, United 
        States Code, to the expiration at the end of or extension beyond 
        a seven-year period shall be considered to be a reference to an 
        expiration on or extension beyond November 17, 2014.''.

    Approved October 12, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3689:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 111-198 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 155 (2009):
                                    Oct. 13, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 156 (2010):
                                    Sept. 28, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
**~** 0.00 > ),tH**~** 0 .Oil 

# s 0.00**~-** 1)1)(\ \ 0.011 

# s 0.00 .., t**~** pn (i• 0. 1Hl
The known number ofproducts in compliance: 

### Number Total Costs ofcompliance for U.S

. fleet: $415,650 Costs covered under warranty (if known) $Warranty

On-Condition Costs:

# · Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour)

replacement) testing, and close

up) $ 0.00 

### 'S OJliJ $ 0.00 

# ' li.Ot• 

# s 0.00 ':.> p 

### no 

# ' !).0() I iii, 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty costs): Repair costs are not specified by Boeing. Materials are listed in SB on pages 38-41 but since patches and doublers are manufactured as needed, no cost is identified.
There are two optional terminating actions

. Ia) PART3: Groups 1&2 ZONE 1- PREVENTIVE MODIFICATION= 144 work hours (SB pg 29-30) lb) PART3: Group 3 ZONE 1- PREVENTIVE MODIFICATION= 139 work hours (SB pg 30-31) 2a) Groups 1&2 SKIN PANEL REPLACEMENT= 615 work hours (SB page 33) 2b) Group 3 SKIN PANEL REPLACEMENT= 573 work hours (SB page 33) 2c) Skin panel cost from $20,3 16 to $26,496 (SB page 37) This is a partial list ofall the hours and costs associated with the actions in SB 757

-53

-0097 rev 2. See Section G. Manpower (pages 28- 33) 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory

# action"?**·** YES* 

### D NO lZI *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:
Is the AD significant? • YES* 

### D NO lZI *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities? Explain for either a Yes or No

# answer.**~** YES 

### D NO lZI 

### 9

### Explanation: Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

### This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftransportation? •

### YES* 0**NO~** 

### *Explanation:



### 10
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                May 15, 2006 | By:    | /s/                LUIGI LO BASSO          |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                               |   | Luigi                Lo Basso              |
|                               |   | **Chief                Financial Officer** |