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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7814 

To establish a strategic uranium reserve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2020 

Mr. LATTA (for himself and Ms. CHENEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To establish a strategic uranium reserve. 

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 ‘‘Nuclear Prosperity and 

5 Security Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STRATEGIC URANIUM RESERVE. 

7 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after 

9 the date of enactment of this section and subject to 

10 the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of 

11 Energy shall establish and operate a uranium reVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:39 Aug 15, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7814.IH H7814

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7814 IH

1 serve (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Reserve’’) 

2 in accordance with this section. 

3 (2) OTHER AUTHORITY.—In establishing and 

4 operating the Reserve, the Secretary of Energy shall 

5 use the authority granted to the Secretary of Energy 

6 under sections 53, 63, and 161 g. of the Atomic En7 ergy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, and 

8 2201(g)). 

9 (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the Reserve are— 

10 (1) to ensure the availability of uranium mined 

11 in the United States in the event of a market dis12 ruption; and 

13 (2) to support strategic fuel cycle capabilities in 

14 the United States. 

15 (c) EXCLUSION.—The Secretary shall exclude ura16 nium that is mined in the United States by an entity that 

17 is owned or controlled by the Government of the Russian 

18 Federation or the People’s Republic of China or is incor19 porated in the Russian Federation or the People’s Repub20 lic of China from the reserve. 

21 (d) REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.—Not later than 90 

22 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Sec23 retary of Energy shall publish a request for information 

24 that shall be used by the Secretary of Energy to evalu25 ate— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7814 IH

1 (1) how to operate and manage the Reserve; 

2 (2) how to acquire uranium for the Reserve, in3 cluding the method of transportation and storage; 

4 and 

5 (3) the quantity and form of uranium to ac6 quire for the Reserve. 

7 (e) BUDGET REQUEST.—For each fiscal year begin8 ning after the date of enactment of this section, the Sec9 retary of Energy shall include in the budget materials sub10 mitted in support of the budget of the President (sub11 mitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, 

12 United States Code)— 

13 (1) a request for amounts for the acquisition, 

14 transportation, or storage of uranium in the Re15 serve; or 

16 (2) if such request is not included, an expla17 nation for why such amounts are not requested. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Mrs. Joseph D. BOUDREAUX et al. v. George A. CASANOVA et al.

No. 62179.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 19, 1978.

In re: Mrs. Joseph Boudreaux, Individually and as natural tutrix of her two minor children applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Acadia.

Writ denied.
No. 00-6887.

#### Valdez et ux. *v.*Property Reserve, Inc., et al.

Sup. Ct. Haw. Motion of petitioners for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis [ante,*p. 1067] denied.
#### Joseph Nathan EANOTTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-276.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 24, 1970.

Rehearing Denied July 20, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; John G. Ferris, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
#### John L. VISCONTI et ux., Petitioners, v. CITY OF TITUSVILLE, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 43161.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 28, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 269 So.2d 693.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7620 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7620

     To amend the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 to provide for the 
    compensation of elderly victims of property damage, to provide 
increased funding for the crime victim compensation fund, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 16, 2020

  Ms. Bonamici (for herself, Mr. King of New York, Ms. Pressley, Mr. 
   Katko, and Ms. Stefanik) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 to provide for the 
    compensation of elderly victims of property damage, to provide 
increased funding for the crime victim compensation fund, 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 ``Edith Shorougian Senior Victims of 
Fraud Compensation Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR ELDERLY VICTIMS OF FINANCIAL FRAUD.

    Section 1403(d) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (34 U.S.C. 
20102(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by striking ``include damage'' and inserting 
                the following: ``include--
                    ``(A) damage''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following: ``or
                    ``(B) damage to or loss of property of elderly 
                victims of financial fraud, abuse, or exploitation;'';
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) the term `elderly victim' means a victim who is not 
        less than 60 years of age.''.

SEC. 3. ADDITION TO CRIME VICTIMS FUND.

    Section 1402(b) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (34 U.S.C. 
20101(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) any monetary payment made to the United States 
        Government as a fine or penalty under, in relation to an 
        alleged criminal act--
                    ``(A) a deferred prosecution agreement;
                    ``(B) a non-prosecution agreement; or
                    ``(C) any other settlement agreement.''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7904 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to support the efforts of State 

and local governments to provide for priority testing of essential critical 

infrastructure workers with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 

(COVID–19), and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2020 

Mr. CRAWFORD (for himself and Mr. COHEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to support the 

efforts of State and local governments to provide for 

priority testing of essential critical infrastructure workers 

with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID– 

19), 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 ‘‘Critical Infrastructure 

5 Employee Protection Act of 2020’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7904 IH

1 SEC. 2. IDENTIFICATION OF COVID–19 TESTING NEEDS OF 

2 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE EMPLOYEES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation 

4 shall— 

5 (1) adopt, for use by the Department of Trans6 portation in carrying out response efforts relating to, 

7 and operations during, the Coronavirus Disease 

8 2019 (COVID–19) pandemic, the categorization of 

9 ‘‘essential critical infrastructure workers’’ identified 

10 in the Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastruc11 ture Workforce published by the Department of 

12 Homeland Security on March 28, 2020 (or a subse13 quent version of that guidance); and 

14 (2) coordinate with the Director of the Centers 

15 for Disease Control and Prevention and the Admin16 istrator of the Federal Emergency Management 

17 Agency to support efforts of State and local govern18 ments to provide for— 

19 (A) priority testing of essential critical in20 frastructure workers (as such term is used in 

21 paragraph (1)) with respect to the Coronavirus 

22 Disease 2019 (COVID–19); and 

23 (B) priority access to personal protective 

24 equipment, sanitizers, nonmedical-grade facial 

25 coverings, and other health-related or protective 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7904 IH

1 supplies necessary to safely perform essential 

2 critical infrastructure work. 

3 (b) APPLICATION.—Nothing in this section requires 

4 the provision of priority testing or priority access to per5 sonal protective equipment for essential critical infrastruc6 ture workers (as such term is used in subsection (a)(1)) 

7 to be prioritized over the provision of that testing or access 

8 to personal protective equipment for other individuals who 

9 are identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Pre10 vention or any other relevant Federal, State, or local agen11 cy as having a higher priority for that testing or access 

12 to personal protective equipment, including— 

13 (1) patients; 

14 (2) healthcare workers; and 

15 (3) first responders. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
No. 00-549.

#### Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, *ante,*p. 1050.] Motion of National Association of Securities and Commercial Law Attorneys for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae*granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7655 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7655

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make dischargeable debts 
for educational loans of certain debtors whose income has been reduced 
for the duration of or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak or who have 
           a family member who died as a result of COVID-19.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 16, 2020

  Ms. Scanlon (for herself, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Garcia of 
  Illinois, Ms. Adams, and Mr. Vargas) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make dischargeable debts 
for educational loans of certain debtors whose income has been reduced 
for the duration of or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak or who have 
           a family member who died as a result of COVID-19.

    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 ``COVID-19 Student Loan Relief Act 
(CSLRA) of 2020''.

SEC. 2. DISCHARGEABLE EDUCATIONAL LOANS.

    Section 523 of title 11 of the United States Code is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to a debt of the 
kind described in paragraph (8) if--
            ``(1) the pre-tax income for a calendar year of the debtor 
        has declined--
                    ``(A) by at least 20 percent, and the prior income 
                of the debtor was less than $75,000 per year;
                    ``(B) by at least 30 percent, and the prior income 
                of the debtor was between $75,000 and $125,000; or
                    ``(C) by at least 40 percent, and the prior income 
                of the debtor was not less than $125,000;
        beginning January 21, 2020 and extending until 60 days after 
        the duration of the COVID-19 Emergency or the duration of the 
        COVID-19 outbreak or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak; or
            ``(2) the primary income-earner of the debtor's family died 
        or became seriously disabled as a result of COVID-19.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### E. J. BRUCE LIMITED, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Emil SAUERBRUN, Mira Sauerbrun, Joseph Salamon, and Magdolna Salamon, his wife, Appellees.

No. 70-651.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 4, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                            4,932,003
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                     1,116,807
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                       4,362,842
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 10,587,165
<PP&E>                              493,830
<DEPRECIATION>                      141,275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   13,880,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               755,416
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                            226,398
<OTHER-SE>                       20,377,006
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     13,880,846
<SALES>                           5,725,798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  5,975,790
<CGS>                             2,051,597
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     2,051,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  2,113,720
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   1,810,473
<INCOME-TAX>                         30,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               1,780,473
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      1,780,473
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.08

        


</TABLE>
AAM-11-226-E 

April 7, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10234 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0268 

Mr. Keith Deschambeault 

Acadian Seaplanes, LLC 

2640 Main Street 

Rangeley, MA 04970 

Dear Mr. Deschambeault: 

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 letter dated March 15, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Acadian Seaplanes, LLC (Acadian Seaplanes) for an exemption from part 120 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow 

Acadian Seaplanes, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one 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 Acadian Seaplanes. 

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 Acadian Seaplanes, LLC an exemption from 14 CFR 

part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Acadian Seaplanes, 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 Acadian Seaplanes 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 

Acadian Seaplanes part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

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

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
EXHIBIT 11.1

Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

Computation of Earnings Per Share

The following formula was used to calculate the earnings per share, Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and six months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006,
included in this report as Exhibit 13.3.

Earnings Per Share

Net Income / Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding for the period



|                                    |  |                                  |           |      |   |          
|----------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | ---------
|                                    |  | Three months ended September 30,
|                                    |  | 2007                             |           | 2006
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                                  | 1,528,443 |      |   | 1,528,443
|Net Income                          |  | $                                | 579,613   |      | $ | 591,693  
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                                | 0.38      |      | $ | 0.39     
|                                    | 
|                                    |  | Nine months ended September 30, 
|                                    |  | 2007                             |           | 2006
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                                  | 1,528,443 |      |   | 1,528,443
|Net Income                          |  | $                                | 1,501,031 |      | $ | 1,741,169
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                                | 0.98      |      | $ | 1.14     

No common stock equivalents exist.
#### Joseph Roy LUTZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1406.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 3, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERISTAR INTL. HOLDINGS CORP. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,818
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     44,503
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,667
<PP&E>                                         446,804
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,140,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          252,460
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,241,290
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,140,231
<SALES>                                        242,251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,392,251
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,675,665
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,178,933
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                559,837
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            559,837
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   559,837
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
        

</TABLE>
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by

assignment.

NO. 07-01-0374-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

______________________________

DORIS JEAN WILLIAMS, JOHNNIE JUNE CAMPBELL, 

AND THE ESTATE OF LEAVIRTA AUSTIN, DECEASED, APPELLANTS

V.

DAMON HILL, M.D., APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2000-509,771-A; HONORABLE SAM MEDINA, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., REAVIS, J. and BOYD, S.J.1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants Doris Jean Williams, Johnnie June Campbell, and the Estate of Leavirta

Austin, Deceased, filed a Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal on October 29, 2002,

averring that they no longer wish to prosecute their appeal. 
Without passing on the merits of the case, appellants’ motion for voluntary dismissal

is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Having dismissed

the appeal at appellants’ personal request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and

our mandate will issue forthwith. 

Phil Johnson

 Chief Justice