alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frances A. RISTEEN, Petitioner, v. Donald E. RISTEEN, Respondent.

No. 44226.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 28, 1973.

Certiorari denied, 280 So.2d 488.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
# C_2011317EN.01000901.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/9

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 October 2011

2011/C 317/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4160 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 107,29 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4427 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87935 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0182 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2211 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,6725 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,700 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 300,35 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7040 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3250 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3115 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,4716 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3270 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4072 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,9975 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7321 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7588 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 565,14 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,9515 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0058 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4955 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 448,30 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3419 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,423 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 42,2850 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,245 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4082 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,5850 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,0530 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4160

JPY

Japanese yen

107,29

DKK

Danish krone

7,4427

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87935

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0182

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2211

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,6725

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,700

HUF

Hungarian forint

300,35

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7040

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3250

RON

Romanian leu

4,3115

TRY

Turkish lira

2,4716

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3270

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4072

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,9975

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7321

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7588

KRW

South Korean won

1 565,14

ZAR

South African rand

10,9515

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0058

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4955

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 448,30

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3419

PHP

Philippine peso

60,423

RUB

Russian rouble

42,2850

THB

Thai baht

43,245

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4082

MXN

Mexican peso

18,5850

INR

Indian rupee

69,0530

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# EDSP: T1 Assay Review Process

• OPP (EFED/HED); OSCP; OPPT; OW; ORD 

# T 1 

# Assay Study Reports

• Generate Draft DERs 

# Primary Reviews (Contractor)

• Provides QA/QC

• Agency's Conclusions

• Draft DERs v. 1 

# Secondary Reviews (EPA Scientists)

• Members from sister offices

• Provides consistency

- Check across assays/chemicals 

# Commitee Reviews (T 1 

# ARC)

• Members from sister offices

• Evaluate interaction with E*A*T

• T1ARC DERs

• OSRI (Open Lit & Part 158 data) 

# T 1 

# WOE Committee

• Use SAP model 

### Generate WOE Document
(Result of T 1 WOE Committee)
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1809 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1809

To amend chapter 77 of title 5, United States Code, to clarify certain 
due process rights of Federal employees serving in sensitive positions, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 12 (legislative day, December 11), 2013

 Mr. Tester (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mrs. McCaskill) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
             on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend chapter 77 of title 5, United States Code, to clarify certain 
due process rights of Federal employees serving in sensitive positions, 
                        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. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 7701 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (l); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following:
    ``(k)(1) The Board has authority to review on the merits an appeal 
by an employee or applicant for employment of an action arising from a 
determination that the employee or applicant for employment is 
ineligible for a sensitive position if--
            ``(A) the sensitive position does not require a security 
        clearance or access to classified information; and
            ``(B) such action is otherwise appealable.
    ``(2) In this subsection, the term `sensitive position' means a 
position designated as a sensitive position under Executive Order 10450 
(5 U.S.C. 7311 note), or any successor thereto.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any appeal that is 
pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 11819.

#### Ray, Admx., *v.*The Pennsylvania Company et al.

Decided October 19, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Mr. Harvey Scribner*and *Mr. Curtis T.*Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Marshall & Fraser*and *Mr. C. A. Seiders,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Si-iauck and Price, JJ., concur.
Table 11.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit, for the United States and Regions:
                  Third Quarter 2002 and 2001

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                                   Third quarter 2002


                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      9.0       7.3       8.3      11.5       7.2
      For rent...........................      2.8       2.0       2.8       3.5       2.5
      For sale only......................      1.0       0.7       1.1       1.2       0.9
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.7       0.6       0.9       0.7       0.7
      Held off market....................      4.5       3.9       3.4       6.2       3.1
        For occasional use...............      1.5       1.2       0.7       2.2       1.5
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.8       0.9       0.6       1.1       0.4
        For other reasons................      2.1       1.8       2.1       2.8       1.2

    Seasonal vacant......................      2.9       3.6       2.6       2.9       2.5

    Occupied.............................     88.0      89.1      89.1      85.6      90.2




                                                   Third quarter 2001

Type of housing unit
                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      9.0       7.1       7.6      11.5       7.6
      For rent...........................      2.6       1.9       2.5       3.2       2.4
      For sale only......................      1.2       0.8       1.2       1.5       1.0
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.8       0.8       0.8       0.8       0.7
      Held off market....................      4.4       3.7       3.1       6.0       3.5
        For occasional use...............      1.6       1.1       0.4       2.4       1.7
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      0.8       0.7       0.7       1.0       0.5
        For other reasons................      2.0       1.9       2.0       2.6       1.3

    Seasonal vacant......................      2.9       3.7       2.9       2.6       2.7

    Occupied.............................     88.2      89.2      89.5      85.9      89.7
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 25, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

REVISED OCTOBER 4, 2005

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 03-60358

_____________________

INGALLS SHIPBUILDING

 Plaintiff - Appellant - Cross-Appellee

 v.

FEDERAL INSURANCE CO

 Defendant - Appellee

 v.

TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE INC

 Cross-Appellant

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

NIGEL S BROUSSARD

 Plaintiff

 v.

TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE INC; ET AL

 Defendants

TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE INC

 Defendant - Cross Defendant - Counter

 Claimant - Cross-Appellant

 v.

CERTIFIED EMPLOYEE SERVICES INC

 Defendant - Appellee

 v.
MH PYRAMID INC

 Defendant - Cross Claimant - Cross

 Defendant - Cross-Appellee

 and

CRAFT WELDING & CONTRACTING CO

 Defendant - Cross Claimant - Counter

 Defendant - Cross-Appellee

 v.

INGALLS SHIPBUILDING

 Appellant - Cross-Appellee

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

TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE

 Plaintiff - Appellee - Cross-Appellant

 v.

TUDOR INSURANCE CO; ET AL

 Defendants

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,

PENNSYLVANIA; NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

 Defendants - Appellants - Cross-Appellees

 _____________________

 No. 03-60557

 _____________________

INGALLS SHIPBUILDING

 Plaintiff

 v.

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

 Defendant

---------------------------------------------
*District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting

by designation.

TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE

 Plaintiff - Appellee

 v.

TUDOR INSURANCE COMPANY; ET AL

 Defendants

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,

PENNSYLVANIA; NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

 Defendants - Appellants

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Mississippi

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC

Before WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE, District

Judge.*

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing filed by National Union Fire

Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (“National Union”)

is DENIED, and as no member of this panel nor judge in regular

active service on the court has requested that the court be

polled on rehearing en banc (FED. R. APP, P. AND 5TH CIR. R. 35),

the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also DENIED.

The Petition for Panel Rehearing filed by National Fire &

Marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”) is GRANTED in part,

for the limited purpose of modifying the portion of our opinion
that remanded for the district court to re-determine the amount

of Transocean’s defense costs for which National Fire is

responsible. That portion of our opinion is hereby deleted and

withdrawn. Therefore, the district court’s original calculation

of the portion of Transocean’s defense costs for which National

Fire is obligated is AFFIRMED.
#### Dorothy Ashley BRYANT, Petitioner, v. Sharon Anita ASHLEY and Ann Ava Ashley, and Johnnie Mae Ashley, Respondents.

No. 71-69.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 12, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
#### Adele KAPPEL, Appellant, v. Arthur T. BRIGISSER et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1510.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form
S-8 Nos. 333-34653 and 333-84387) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan and
the Non-Qualified, Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan of Congoleum
Corporation of our report dated March 23, 2009, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Congoleum Corporation included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008.








/s/
Ernst & Young LLP







Boston,
Massachusetts


March
23, 2009
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1776 

To encourage spectrum licensees to make unused spectrum available for 

use by rural and smaller carriers in order to expand wireless coverage. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2013 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mrs. FISCHER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To encourage spectrum licensees to make unused spectrum 

available for use by rural and smaller carriers in order 

to expand wireless coverage. 

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 ‘‘Rural Spectrum Acces5 sibility Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF LICENSES. 

7 Section 307 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

8 U.S.C. 307) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1776 IS

1 ‘‘(g) EXTENSION OF LICENSES.— 

2 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.— 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this 

4 subsection— 

5 ‘‘(i) the term ‘rural area’ means any 

6 area other than— 

7 ‘‘(I) an area described in clause 

8 (i) or (ii) of section 343(a)(13)(A) of 

9 the Consolidated Farm and Rural De10 velopment Act (7 U.S.C. 

11 1991(a)(13)(A)); and 

12 ‘‘(II) a city, town, or incor13 porated area that has a population of 

14 greater than 20,000 inhabitants; and 

15 ‘‘(ii) the term ‘small carrier’ means a 

16 carrier with not more than 1,500 employ17 ees. 

18 ‘‘(B) CALCULATION OF NUMBER OF EM19 PLOYEES.—For purposes of subparagraph 

20 (A)(ii), the number of employees of a carrier 

21 shall be determined in accordance with section 

22 121.106 of title 13, Code of Federal Regula23 tions, or any successor thereto. 

24 ‘‘(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—Not later 

25 than 90 days after the date of enactment of Rural 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1776 IS

1 Spectrum Accessibility Act of 2013, the Commission 

2 shall establish a program under which a carrier that 

3 receives a license under this section may partition or 

4 disaggregate the license in order to make unused 

5 spectrum available to small carriers or carriers serv6 ing a rural area. 

7 ‘‘(3) EXTENSION OF LICENSE TERM.—Any car8 rier that receives a license under this section and 

9 participates in the program established under para10 graph (2) shall receive a 3-year extension of the li11 cense granted under this section.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 166 

To designate the new Interstate Route 70 bridge over the Mississippi River 

connecting St. Louis, Missouri and southwestern Illinois as the ‘‘Stan 

Musial Memorial Bridge’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 28, 2013 

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BLUNT, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the new Interstate Route 70 bridge over the 

Mississippi River connecting St. Louis, Missouri and 

southwestern Illinois as the ‘‘Stan Musial Memorial 

Bridge’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STAN MUSIAL MEMORIAL BRIDGE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The new Interstate Route 70 

5 bridge over the Mississippi River that connects St. Louis, 

6 Missouri to southwestern Illinois shall be known and des7 ignated as the ‘‘Stan Musial Memorial Bridge’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 166 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the bridge referred to in subsection (a) shall be 

4 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Stan Musial Memorial 

5 Bridge’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Fourth Quarter 2002 and 2001




                                    Fourth     Fourth     Standard    Standard
Area                                quarter    quarter    error on    error on
                                     2002       2001     2002 rate  difference

United States.....................      68.3       68.0        0.2         0.2

  Inside MAs......................      66.5       66.4        0.2         0.3
   In central cities..............      52.1       52.2        0.3         0.5
   Not in central cities (suburbs)      75.1       74.8        0.2         0.3
  Outside MAs.....................      75.7       74.9        0.3         0.5

 Northeast........................      64.9       64.0        0.4         0.6
 Midwest..........................      73.3       73.5        0.3         0.5
 South............................      70.3       70.1        0.2         0.4
 West.............................      62.6       62.3        0.3         0.5
#### Spencer Samuel JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-921.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 28, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1578 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to cover the costs associated 

with the care of veterans at medical foster homes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2013 

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

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to cover the 

costs associated with the care of veterans at medical 

foster homes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COVERAGE OF COSTS OF CARE FOR VETERANS 

4 AT MEDICAL FOSTER HOMES. 

5 In conducting the medical foster home program pur6 suant to section 17.73 of title 38, Code of Federal Regula7 tions, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may cover the 

8 costs associated with the care of veterans at medical foster 

9 homes. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
259 La. 999

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Wayne SPINA et al.

No. 51893.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 16, 1971.

In re: Wayne Spina, Charles Gibson and Wayne Price applying for writs of certi-orari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ granted. See order.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Elmo E. Lear, Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 21st day of January, 1972, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relators herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relators should not be granted.
#### Russell WALTERS, Appellant, v. Betty J. ANDREWS, and the City of South Miami, etc., Appellees.

No. 72-1176.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 13, 1973.

Robert M. Brake, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Tobias Simon, Edward N. Moore, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment on the pleadings in a quo warranto proceeding. The circuit judge held that a section of the Charter of the City of South Miami which provided that candidates for the City Council shall be qualified electors did not require that they reside in the city for the six months next preceding the election. The opinion of the trial judge was as follows :

> “THIS CAUSE came on for a hearing before the court on April 24, 1972. The Relator seeks the ouster of Respondent Betty J. Andrews as a Councilman of the City of South Miami, on the ground that she was not a resident of the City of South Miami for six months next preceding the election. In her return to the petition for writ of quo warranto, the Respondent denies these allegations and as affirmative defenses, sets forth the facts of her residency with greater particularity than are required by the rules of civil procedure. In addition, however, the Respondent contends that the residency requirements relating to her are void and unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for reasons set forth in Dunn v. Blumstein, [405 U.S. 330, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972)].

> “It is not necessary for the Court to take testimony on the question of the Respondent’s length of residency in the City of South Miami, since the Court agrees that there are no valid residency requirements appertaining to the Respondent. The Charter of the City of South Miami, enacted as Chapter 29539, Laws of 1953, in Article II, Section 14(a), provides that:

> ‘Councilmen shall he qualified electors of the City, shall hold no other public office, and be residents of the City during the tenure of office.’

> *544Thus, the only residency requirement, prior to election, if any, are precisely the same for electors or voters of the City.

> “Section 9-2 of the Code of the City of South Miami provides, in part, that electors shall have resided in the City of South Miami six months next preceding any election. This Court expressly finds that the foregoing ordinance of the City of South Miami is void and unconstitutional, and deprives the Respondent of the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed to her by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

> “There are no valid pre-election residency requirements enacted by the City of South Miami for either voters or candidates to public office.”

Having examined the briefs and the record and having heard argument of counsel, we hold that error has not been shown.

Affirmed.