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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1679 

To require a study on the Russian RD–180 rocket engine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2013 

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

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require a study on the Russian RD–180 rocket engine. 

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 ‘‘National Security 

5 Rocket Engine Study Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORT ON RUSSIAN RD–180 ROCKET ENGINE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

8 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 

9 shall submit to the congressional defense committees a re10 port on the Russian RD–180 rocket engine. 

11 (b) ELEMENTS.—The report required under sub12 section (a) shall include the following elements: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1679 IS

1 (1) An assessment of the feasibility of manufac2 turing an alternative rocket engine in the United 

3 States. 

4 (2) An estimate of the cost of manufacturing an 

5 alternative rocket engine in the United States, in6 cluding any cost savings that manufacturing a do7 mestic alternative provides compared to the cost of 

8 buying Russian engines over the life of the Evolved 

9 Expendable Launch Vehicle program. 

10 (3) A description of policy benefits and policy 

11 concerns related to where the rocket engine is manu12 factured. 

13 (c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW.—The Comp14 troller General shall review the report submitted under 

15 subsection (a) and submit the results of its study to the 

16 congressional defense committees. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1815 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1815

    To amend the Public Health Service Act to include occupational 
 therapists as behavioral and mental health professionals for purposes 
                 of the National Health Service Corps.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 12 (legislative day, December 11), 2013

  Mr. Begich introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Public Health Service Act to include occupational 
 therapists as behavioral and mental health professionals for purposes 
                 of the National Health Service Corps.

    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 ``Occupational Therapy in Mental 
Health Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUDING OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS AS BEHAVIORAL AND MENTAL 
              HEALTH PROFESSIONALS FOR PURPOSES OF THE NATIONAL HEALTH 
              SERVICE CORPS.

    Section 331(a)(1)(E)(i) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
254d(a)(1)(E)(i)) is amended by inserting ``occupational therapists,'' 
after ``psychiatric nurse specialists,''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


EYECARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    12/30/95   12/26/96    1/3/98     1/2/99      1/1/00
                                                    --------   --------    ------     ------      ------

<S>                                                 <C>          <C>      <C>        <C>        <C>
Net earnings (loss)                                  (9,119)      1,418     5,215    (26,273)    (5,257)

Add Income tax provision                                 --         188       335         13        384
                                                    -------      ------   -------    -------    -------
                                                     (9,119)      1,606     5,550    (26,260)    (4,873)

Fixed Charges:
          Interest expense, net                       9.046      10,341    14,380     23,804     25,091
          Interest factor portion of rent expense     4,011       4,368     6,254      6,888      8,466
                                                    -------      ------   -------    -------    -------
          Total fixed charges                        13,057      14,709    20,634     30,692     33,557

Earnings (loss) before income                         3,938      16,315    26,184      4,432     28,684
          taxes and fixed charges

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                      0.3         1.1       1.3        0.1        0.9

</TABLE>
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA-2011-1419 Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-281-AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? (You might need to submit a separate 

record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines “Ex Parte Contacts.”)

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE

Boeing Don Jenson 7/14/2010 

ATA Joe White 12/7/2010 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information:
#### Janet MOORE, Petitioner, v. Hon. Warren H. EDWARDS, Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, Division A, Orange County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-820.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 11, 1970.

Louis R. Bowen, Jr., Public Defender, and Maurice M. Paul, Asst. Public Defender, Orlando, for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

*737REED, Judge.

We have before us a petition for writ of prohibition directed to the Honorable Warren H. Edwards as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Orange County, Florida. Petitioner is Janet Moore who seeks to prohibit her trial before the respondent on a certain charge now pending in the Criminal Court of Record for Orange County, Florida. On the basis of the petition we issued a Rule Nisi and a return has been filed by the State.

The facts are without dispute. The petitioner was arrested on 13 February 1970 and was bound over on 18 March 1970. She is still incarcerated. On 14 April 1970 an information was filed against the petitioner charging her with armed robbery. On 29 April 1970 during the March term of the Criminal Court of Record the petitioner filed a demand for a speedy trial. Thereafter on 11 May 1970, the first day of the May term of that court, the petitioner filed another demand for a speedy trial. On 14 September 1970 the petitioner filed a motion for her discharge on the basis of the speedy trial statute. The respondent denied the motion and set the cause for trial on 8 October 1970.

The critical issue here is whether or not the respondent improperly denied the petitioner’s discharge under the provisions of F.S.1969, section 915.01(1), F.S.A.

The petitioner’s initial demand for a speedy trial was not made on the first day of a term of court. This demand was, therefore, a nullity because F.S.1969, section 915.01(1), F.S.A., requires that a demand for speedy trial in cases governed by that section be made on the first day of a term. In our opinion, the first proper demand for a speedy trial under the section was made on 11 May 1970 by the petitioner.

In our opinion, section 915.01(1) clearly contemplates that the State may bring an accused to trial at any time during a period of three full terms from the date of the first proper demand. Compare Woodward v. Edwards, Fourth District Court of Appeal, Case No. 70-775, opinion filed December 11, 1970.

If our construction of the statute is correct, the third full term after the first proper demand filed by petitioner would have been the September term of court. We, therefore, conclude that the trial judge properly denied the motion for discharge and set the cause for trial during the September term. For this reason, we will deny the writ of prohibition and discharge the Rule Nisi.

That which we said in the case of Woodward v. Edwards, supra, with respect to delay caused by the filing of a petition for a writ of prohibition in this court is also pertinent to this case.

Writ denied.

WALDEN and OWEN, JJ, concur.
Table 7.  Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder:  First Quarter 1998 and 1997

                              First      First    Standard   Standard
Age of householder           Quarter    Quarter   error on   error on
                                 1998       1997  1998 rate difference

United States..............      65.9       65.4        0.2        0.2

    Less than 25 years.....      17.5       17.3        0.6        0.9
    25 to 29 years.........      36.4       35.2        0.6        0.8
    30 to 34 years.........      52.8       52.1        0.6        0.8
    35 to 39 years.........      62.4       62.1        0.5        0.7
    40 to 44 years.........      69.4       69.2        0.5        0.7
    45 to 49 years.........      74.1       73.8        0.5        0.7
    50 to 54 years.........      78.0       77.4        0.5        0.8
    55 to 59 years.........      79.0       78.7        0.6        0.8
    60 to 64 years.........      81.8       80.7        0.6        0.9
    65 to 69 years.........      81.8       82.6        0.6        0.8
    70 to 74 years.........      82.9       82.0        0.6        0.9
    75 years and over......      75.6       75.5        0.5        0.7

      Less than 35 years...      39.0       38.6        0.4        0.5
      35 to 44 years.......      65.9       65.5        0.4        0.5
      45 to 54 years.......      75.9       75.5        0.4        0.5
      55 to 64 years.......      80.3       79.6        0.4        0.6
      65 years and over....      79.1       79.2        0.3        0.5
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2262

In Re: CHARLES A. RIPPY, JR., 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition.

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 19, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Charles A. Rippy, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Charles A. Rippy, Jr., a North Carolina prisoner,

petitions for a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition. He 

challenges his criminal conviction and seeks the appointment of 

a new attorney and DNA testing. We deny the petition. 

A writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition are 

drastic remedies to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. 

See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) 

(writ of mandamus); In re Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 

1983) (writ of prohibition). Relief under these writs is only 

available when there are no other means by which the relief 

sought could be granted. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th 

Cir. 1987). The party seeking relief carries the heavy burden 

of showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the 

relief he desires” and that his right to such relief is “clear 

and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 

U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Rippy has not made such a showing. 

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
gas 

If Al~egheny Valley Joint Sewage Authori ty - Wastewater Treatment 

Plant desires to accept oil and gas exp~oration and/or production 

wastewater after signing this certification, Allegheny Valley Joint 

Sewage Authority -Wastewater Treatment Plant wi ll, prior to acceptance : 

Notify EPA Region III and PADEP of its intent, take all actions 

necessary to comply with the Clean water Act (CWA) and receive all 

necessary approvals from EPA and PADEP. 

As a managing 

true and correct. 

under the civil and 

provide for the 

imprisonment. 

company official, I certify that this statement is 

I am aware that violations of CWA are punishable 

criminal provisions of Section 309 of the CWA, which 

assessment of penalties, injunctive relief and 

By ~~a. cha~l:hiavetta v~ Plant Manag r 

October 3, 2011 

Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1999
<CASH>                                           1,096
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  139,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,871)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,607
<PP&E>                                          36,211
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (11,675)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 716,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,516
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           331
<OTHER-SE>                                     370,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   716,601
<SALES>                                        697,680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               697,680
<CGS>                                          499,244
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  629,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,809
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,251
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,265
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,911
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,354
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,354
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76


</TABLE>
#### Henry W. SIMON, Jr., Appellant, v. LEASING ASSOCIATES, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-985.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 30, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Jack N. DULBERG, individually and as Trustee, Appellant, v. Bernard NEUWIRTH and Lucille Neuwirth, his wife, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-437.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 14, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
252 La. 703

#### James E. WALKER, individually and as administrator of the estate of his minor children, James C. Walker and Alicia Walker, and Mrs. Golda F. Walker v. William JONES et al.

No. 49339.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1968.

In re State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways applying for certio-rari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 212 So.2d 852.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4177

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL ALLEN KENNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (2:00-cr-00104) Submitted: October 18, 2006 Decided: November 14, 2006 Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Joanne Vella Kirby, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Allen Kenney was charged with violating supervised release by committing a crime. Specifically, his probation officer alleged that Kenney violated release by operating a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory in Putnam County, West Virginia. Kenney denied the charge. Following a hearing, the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Kenney had violated release as charged. The court revoked Kenney’s release and imposed a sentence of twenty-four months. Kenney appeals. We affirm. Kenney contends that the district court erred by finding by a preponderance of the evidence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000), that Kenney participated in the manufacture or attempted manufacture of methamphetamine. Testimony at the hearing revealed that state police officers who responded to a trailer in Putnam County noticed a strong smell of methamphetamine emanating from inside the trailer. Officers discovered inside the trailer precursor chemicals and paraphernalia used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. When officers announced their presence, Kenney fled out the trailer’s back door. Finally, Kenney’s girlfriend, Jessica Searls, gave a written statement that she and Kenney were at the trailer so that he could manufacture methamphetamine. We conclude on the basis of this evidence that the district court did- 3 - not abuse its discretion in finding that Kenney had violated a term of his release as charged. We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Abram JORDAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-705.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 19, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1774 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 252
113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1774

    To reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 for 1 year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 21, 2013

Mr. Nelson (for himself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following bill; 
                     which was read the first time

                            December 9, 2013

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 for 1 year.

    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 ``Undetectable Firearms 
Reauthorization Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SUNSET PROVISION.

    Section 2(f)(2) of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (Public 
Law 100-649; 18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended in the matter preceding 
subparagraph (A) by striking ``25'' and inserting ``26''.
                                                       Calendar No. 252

113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1774

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 for 1 year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 9, 2013

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
#### John L. COBBS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-675.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 15, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged by information, tried before the court without a jury, and found guilty of unlawfully and feloniously breaking and entering a building located in Dade County, Florida with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny. The building concerned was a public school. Appellant was sentenced to one year in the county jail. On this appeal, the point presented urges that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was circumstantial and failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We have examined the record and find that the evidence is only partially circumstantial, and that the proof of defendant’s guilt is clear and convincing. No reasonable hypothesis consistent with a judgment of acquittal exists.

Affirmed.
**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
 
 
 I, Edward
B. Meyercord, III, Chief Executive Officer and President of Talk America
Holdings, Inc., have reviewed Talk America Holdings, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 and, based on the
inquiries I have made or caused to be made in the fulfillment of my
responsibilities as the Chief Executive Officer of Talk America Holdings, Inc.,
I hereby certify that:
 
 (i) the
Talk America Holdings, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the
information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of Talk America Holdings,
Inc.
 
 This
certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief
Executive Officer of Talk America Holdings, Inc. with the requirements of
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used for any other
purposes. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Talk America Holdings, Inc.
 
 /s/
Edward B. Meyercord, III
 Edward B.
Meyercord, III
 Chief
Executive Officer and President
 April 25,
2005