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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2748 

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 

relations treatment) to the products of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and 

Tajikistan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2023 

Mr. MURPHY (for himself and Mr. YOUNG) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment 

(normal trade relations treatment) to the products of 

Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV 

4 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO THE PROD5 UCTS OF KAZAKHSTAN, UZBEKISTAN, AND 

6 TAJIKISTAN. 

7 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN8 SIONS OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT.—NotwithVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:35 Sep 07, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2748.IS S2748

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2748 IS

1 standing any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 

2 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may— 

3 (1) determine that such title should no longer 

4 apply to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, or Tajikistan; and 

5 (2) after making a determination under para6 graph (1) with respect to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, 

7 or Tajikistan, proclaim the extension of nondiscrim8 inatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) 

9 to the products of that country. 

10 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV.— 

11 On and after the date on which the President proclaims 

12 the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment to the prod13 ucts of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, or Tajikistan, title IV of 

14 the Trade Act of 1974 shall cease to apply to the country 

15 to which such extension pertains. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2094 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 13, 2005 

Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee 

on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize certain provisions relating to Indian tribal 

justice systems. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

S 2094 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE. 

2 (a) INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE TECHNICAL AND LEGAL

3 ASSISTANCE.—The Indian Tribal Justice Technical and 

4 Legal Assistance Act of 2000 is amended— 

5 (1) in section 106 (25 U.S.C. 3666), by striking 

6 ‘‘for fiscal years 2000 through 2004’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘for fiscal years 2004 through 2010’’; and 

8 (2) in section 201(d) (25 U.S.C. 3681(d)), by 

9 striking ‘‘for fiscal years 2000 through 2004’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘for fiscal years 2004 through 2010’’. 

Passed the Senate December 13, 2005. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24982]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[ID-957-1220-00]


Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey

    The plat of the following described land was officially filed in 
the Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho, 
effective 9:00 a.m. September 10, 1997.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the 
subdivisional lines and the 1899 meanders of the right bank of the 
Snake River, and the subdivision of section 20, T. 12 N., R. 7 W., 
Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group 939, was accepted, September 10, 1997.
    This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of 
the Bureau of Land Management. All inquiries concerning the survey of 
the above described land must be sent to the Chief, Cadastral Survey, 
Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, 
Boise, Idaho, 83709-1657.

    Dated: September 10, 1997.
Duane E. Olsen,
Chief, Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho.
[FR Doc. 97-24982 Filed 9-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-M
#### Jacinto PEREIRA et ux., et al., Appellants, v. STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT of Florida, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-75.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

July 8, 1969.

John E. Santora, Jr., Gordon H. Lee, and John S. Duss, Jacksonville, for appellants.

P. A. Pacyna and Louis S. St. Laurent, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having- been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See Moore v. State Road Department (Fla.App.1965), 171 So.2d 25; Carmazi v. Board of County Commissioners of Dade County (Fla.App.1959), 108 So.2d 318; Duval Engineering and Contracting Company v. Sales (Fla.1955), 77 So.2d 431; Paty v. Town of Palm Beach (1947), 158 Fla. 575, 29 So.2d 363.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
AAM-11-195-E May 31, 2011 Exemption No. 10275 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0537

Mr. Joseph Todd Degidio Paradigm Helicopters, LLC 11811 North Brantly, Suite 206A Houston, TX 77034

Dear Mr. Degidio:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By submission dated May 18, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Paradigm Helicopters, LLC (Paradigm) for an exemption from part 120 to allow Paradigm, which is operating under separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug testing

program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Paradigm.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Paradigm Helicopters, LLC an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Paradigm, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Paradigm are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Paradigm part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
### Water resources of the San Francisco Bay area, California

By: Howard Frederick MatthaiWilliam BackR.P. OrthRobert Brennan

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir378

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Barnes *v.*Christy et al.

*Supreme court*— Dismissals—No *constitutional questions.*

(No. 17520

Decided March 20, 1923.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Sandusky county.

*Messrs. Curtis T. S Ben W. Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. A. V. Baumann, Jr.,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the petition in error herein be, and the same hereby is, dismissed on the ground that no constitutional question is involved.

*Dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
#### Bennie Lee HOLMES v. STATE.

No. 38944.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 225 So.2d 430.
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov> To: "Kyhos, Michael" <MKyhos@ouc.com> Date: 7/22/2010 3:41 PM Subject: Re: Written Extension Request for OUC Stanton Energy Center (Plant ID: 07572) Attachments: pic32655.gif; IRC Extension Request for OUC.pdf Greetings, EPA has reviewed your extension requ est for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire for the Stanton Energy Center facility. The deadline for your plant to submit Version 2 of the completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010. If you need assistance during the completion of the stea m electric questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560. Sincerely, (Embedded image moved to file: pic32655.gif)

From: "Kyhos, Michael" <MKyhos@ouc.com>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Blair, Garfield" <GBlair@ouc.com>, "Corbett, Mark N." <MCorbett@ouc.com>

Date: 07/12/2010 08:34 AM Subject: Written Extension Request for OUC Stanton Energy Center (Plant ID: 07572)

Dear Ms. Alicea: Attached please find the Orlando Utilities Commission’s Stanton Energy Center (Plant ID: 07572) written request for extension to the NPDES effluent guidelines and standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry information collection request questionnaire. Per the USEPA’s original corr espondence, this writte n request for extension is being submitted via e-mail. Please contact me at the numbers below if you have any questions or if you need any additional information concerning this request. Thank you, Mike Kyhos Michael Kyhos CHMM, QEPSenior Environmental Engineer Orlando Utilities Commission 407-434-3036 (office) 407-376-5314 (cell) 407-244-8794 (fax) (See attached file: IRC Extension Request for OUC.pdf)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENE?tAL OF TEXAS



### ma. Coo. B. Bhem Coaptrollerof Fabllo Auatfn, Tesae Dear sirr AUSTIN

A.la44Yunts ‘i.

_.. ._ 

### 44-

dewsit shall be mds in any rson in thd naste

of suoh depositoror aeposltor arid

another person and wit& that 4uuh depoeit ah311 be paid to vor of thea, euekdepoait and dllp

. may be paid to . . . the surviror T ;aa of then, ad s1103 pap;acnt

sfrall ass tasnah bmk. . i ior. al.1 pq-mnta male. . . prfor to the receipt by suoh bask, . , of aotloe Fn writing not to psy. , . . . .Bon. ceo, R. Sieppard,page 8
~8cotionla. That wken an? safety depoalt box h& been . , rctnt&l by any 'bank. in tke nmle of two or more &s*n*, wlth 7220 tighf'oi 3404~3 given to either,or tn the survivor, . . . either of suah parsons,whether the other be liring or not, shell have the rl@;G of aooaas. . . and my reacta tkereg:s&% rxa$aats thereof,azd ia all such oases. . . shallbe exempt.fromell~liab~llit~ whatsoever ?&*a&:pcrron whomsoever Ior ,*srtitti-~e each aoceee. . . or reaovale . .” 38otlon16 oi Artialr 9144.~. veqw5~4 Annotated .Cl~51 Matutea,.was enactedby the legielst&o Ii 1953. The pertinent.porti.onu of t&et sot are as folio-nar

belonging to such a ~..deaeilaat’an~

~ode~or~-are~psr8on~; shall 4eli7er.

the SrislG~40

th4 . . ‘.imrrlvor 'orm-8 wh0a held tn tliis joint names of .adeoedent aad cue oe mor4 other, persons, or upon their er2er or requcgt, unless notioe be served upon t&e Comptrolleraad delivery to ~o".&e~onl.yin the preseaoo Of tbetC&~trollez or '. . . .*.,

~agent.,

'.i ;;-~~ia.@wss

tlx4 .xioa**.ller

c,.,. :: ~. .,~oon8enta .' -~ailuPstd-~'rerYe:

~xJ5Oh y aqtl;i+.: g$;; l*.. ,;;,::;;..*ib*

W4& &&x&ion &all rend.er suah . ."ibank. . ‘,* liable.:.:.I;;..

*.*L, to ~35%japiantof the"amouat,~oi ~.tkkEax

or intereat due or~rtafter to become due upon said dyqiosite

a penalty of mt less than $1003. &*pi&s thk* ?&X0.; azzdthe yayaeaentof suoh . . . my,54 4n:iwced in any aourt, 0r competeLit

jurlsdlotl0n.O The 1929 law RBS expresslyrepealedby t&a Taxa Btiling Code of 1943, ,paesed hy the 48th~

Legialetureat ita Re&ular Sese~on,being.?;. 2. so. 79, Chapter 97, page 127. Chapter 9, Art:cls 11 of tba nforwention~ atis providesa3 r0li0x4: *The f~lloringststutea, togetherwit:? all other law4 03 pexr;a

of lnwa in oonfliatherewith,are hereby repealed; .'. . Aota of 1929, 4ldt L8giebMZ'e or TBxdP, p. 264, oh. 117, 3ectAons 1 and la (Articles 54116 and 54le). . .*‘-1;

. 4.3

!iWs Aot beoane efieotive ninety 4~s aiter adjourbent of'

the Legislature. was Ma-j

11, 1913. 'f58 &at8 Of adjOUrOZ%nt Any doubts existin~,tl;erefore as to whether said Articles 34ld and 3418 me still In effeat have been dispelledby the 'expr833 repeal of thass srtioles by tba 48th Lrgialature.

:_
|   | · | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | information      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      Company’s consolidated financial condition and results of      operations. |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         | /s/      Zhenggang Wang                          |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Zhenggang      Wang                              |
|                         | Chief      Executive Officer and Chairman        |
| Date:      November 15, 2010 | (Principal      Executive Officer)               |
|                         |                                             |
|                         | /s/      Jian Zhang                              |
|                         | Jian      Zhang                                  |
|                         | Chief      Financial Officer                     |
| Date:      November 15, 2010 | (Principal      Accounting and FinancialOfficer) |

----
### Reservoirs in the United States

By: R.O.R. MartinRonald L. Hanson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1838

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (5650 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (4897 pdf)                        
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

This report summarizes the storage capacities and related data of reservoirs and controlled natural lakes for the contermimous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Data are given for all storage facilities having a usable capacity of 5,000 acre-feet or more and completed or under construction as of Jan 1, 1963.

A descriptive list of reservoirs m the United States completed as of Jan 1, 1947, was first published (Geol Survey Circular 23) in March 1948. In 1956 Water-Supply Paper 1360-A, "Reservoirs m the United States," by N.O. Thomas and G.E. Harbeck, Jr, updated this listing and included lists of reservoirs completed or under construction as of Jan 1, 1954. Some of the data shown for reservoirs constructed before 1954 may have been corrected here on the basis of the latest available reservoir survey.

This report lists 1562 reservoirs and lakes, their usable storage totals 359,360,000 acre-feet, and the corresponding surface area IS 14,831,000 acres.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Arthur A. PURO v. Louis PURO.

No. 38925.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 225 So.2d 462.
#### Elliot W. BUTTS, Jr., Appellant, v. Louise A. BUTTS, Appellee.

No. II-145.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1978.

Albert Datz, of Datz, Jacobson & Lembcke, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Walter G. Arnold and Charles W. Arnold, Jr., of Arnold, Stratford & Booth, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Husband appeals a $10,000 attorney’s fee award to wife in a dissolution judgment. We agree that the award was erroneous and reverse. Although there are conflicting estimates of the parties’ respective net worths, the record reveals that both parties have substantial assets. This court has held consistently that when a party has been shown to have the ability to pay for the services of his or her attorney, it is improper to require the other party to pay for those services, even though he or she may have the ability. See *Johnson v. Johnson,*346 So.2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); *Patterson v. Patterson,*348 So.2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*356 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The pre-“no-fault” case of *Valparaiso Bank & Trust Co. v. Sims,*343 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), is distinguishable in that wife there was, as noted by the court, not shown to have the ability to pay a lawyer at the time of the divorce or at the time of the fee hearing.

The award of attorney’s fees is reversed.

MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

McCORD, C. J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NETSCAPE
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION'S TRANSITION REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
OCTOBER 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   10-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          85,885
<SECURITIES>                                    91,598
<RECEIVABLES>                                  171,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,418)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               406,680
<PP&E>                                         247,285
<DEPRECIATION>                               (102,399)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 666,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          261,753
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                     404,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   666,834
<SALES>                                        261,457
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               447,809
<CGS>                                           27,313
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,030
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               396,045
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (6,418)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  99
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (51,417)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (51,417)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (51,417)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.54)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lester JACKSON.

No. 61652.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1978.

In re: Lester Jackson, applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and habeas corpus. Rapides Parish.

Writ granted: Out-of-Time appeal ordered.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J., dissent from the order.