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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 136 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to protect unpaid interns in the 

Federal Government from workplace harassment and discrimination, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. CUMMINGS (for himself, Ms. MENG, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Ms. NORTON, 

and Mr. MEADOWS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to protect unpaid 

interns in the Federal Government from workplace harassment and discrimination, 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 ‘‘Federal Intern Protec5 tion Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2302 of title 5, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 136 IH

1 ‘‘(g)(1) All protections afforded to an employee under 

2 subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of subsection (b)(1) shall 

3 be afforded, in the same manner and to the same extent, 

4 to an intern and an applicant for internship. 

5 ‘‘(2) For purposes of the application of this sub6 section, a reference to an employee shall be considered a 

7 reference to an intern in— 

8 ‘‘(A) section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 

9 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–16); 

10 ‘‘(B) sections 12 and 15 of the Age Discrimina11 tion in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 631, 

12 633a); and 

13 ‘‘(C) section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

14 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791). 

15 ‘‘(3) In this subsection, the term ‘intern’ means an 

16 individual who performs uncompensated voluntary service 

17 in an agency to earn credit awarded by an educational in18 stitution or to learn a trade or occupation.’’. 

19 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 3111(c)(1) 

20 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 

21 ‘‘section 2302(g) (relating to prohibited personnel prac22 tices),’’ before ‘‘chapter 81’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
**Exhibit
      32**


CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(SUBSECTIONS
      (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF


TITLE
      18,
      UNITED STATES CODE)








Pursuant
      to section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
      63
      of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officers of Firstgold, Corp.,
      a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify with respect to the
      Quarterly Report of Firstgold on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31,
      2007
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report")
      that:





(1)           the
      10-QSB Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           the
      information contained in the 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Firstgold.




FIRSTGOLD
              CORP.Dated:  September
                19, 2007
            /s/ A.
              SCOTT
              DOCKTERA.  Scott
              Dockter, President and Chief Executive OfficerDated:  September
              19, 2007
            /s/
              JAMES KLUBERJames
              Kluber, Chief Financial Officer
output_FacilityList

FacilityID met_stationrural_urbanmax_dist model_dist radials circles overlap_distacute

05081NEI13475

05139NEI880

17031NEIIL031069A

17031NEIIL03153

18017NEI16354

18041NEIIN423

18089NEIIN00345

18157NEI32342

20133NEI16356

20205NEI16355

21103NEIKY103236

21111NEI32966

22093NEILA0930002

26163NEIMILF450

26163NEIMIN0731

31105NEINE00009

36001NEI16605

36055NEI37022

39029NEIOHT$5915

39089NEIOHT$5677

39093NEI40462

39125NEI11681

40071NEI12988

40131NEIOK4013107

42095NEI16665

45035NEI16783

45073NEI41416

48039NEI11295

48121NEI7868

48201NEI7162

48245NEI11200

48245NEI6631

48469NEI6481

49045NEIUT19459

51029NEI17512

51710NEI51710SEWELL

55025NEI42539

55035NEI18116

Page 1
output_FacilityList

hours elev multiplier ring1 dep depl phase pdep pdepl

Page 2
output_FacilityList

vdep vdepl All_rcpts user_rcpt bldg_dw urban_pop fastall

Page 3
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE.

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT 

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S 

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT 

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
ROMAINE 

 Measure seedstem from bas seedstem.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ANNA MARGARITA SANDOVAL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50140

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03554-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2015** 

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Anna Margarita Sandoval appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for

importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 & 960. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

APR 13 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Sandoval contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

award her a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the

district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, its application

of the Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion, and its

determination that a defendant was not a minor participant for clear error. See

United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Contrary to Sandoval’s argument, the record shows that the district court

properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines and our precedent, basing its denial of

the adjustment on the totality of the circumstances and a comparison of Sandoval’s

culpability to that of other individuals in the smuggling operation. See U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C); Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1068-69. Moreover, the district

court did not clearly err in denying the mitigating role adjustment when Sandoval

smuggled a significant quantity of drugs, registered the vehicle in her name,

participated in the operation for two months, and had smuggled drugs into the

country on two previous occasions. See Hurtado, 760 F.3d at 1069.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50140
#### Edna Delloiaco, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a preliminary conference order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated December 1, 1989, as denied her application for discovery and inspection of records of the respondent relating to repairs of a fire hydrant subsequent to the happening of accident.

*706Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

A preliminary conference order is not appealable to this court as of right because it is not an order which determined a motion made on notice *(see,*CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; *Yetman v St. Charles Hosp.,*112 AD2d 297; *Cohalan v Johnson Elec. Constr. Corp.,*105 AD2d 770). No appropriate application has been made for permission to appeal *(see,*CPLR 5701 [c]). Therefore, the plaintiffs appeal is dismissed. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### Desmond A. Jordan, Appellant, v Lynne D. Richardson, Respondent.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.) entered May 9, 1990, which, *inter alia,*awarded defendant custody of the parties’ two children, then ages one and three, pendente lite; awarded defendant exclu*311sive possession of the marital residence pendente lite; and granted plaintiff visitation limited to one evening per week and every other weekend with the older child and one evening per week and every fourth weekend with the younger child, with all visits to take place away from the marital residence and overnight visits to be conducted in the presence of plaintiffs sister, unanimously affirmed, without prejudice to an application based upon current circumstances to Supreme Court, New York County, to expand plaintiffs visitation rights, without costs.

As there was some evidence from which it could be found defendant’s safety was threatened by plaintiff’s continued presence in the marital residence, we do not disturb the court’s award of exclusive possession of the marital residence to defendant *(Binet v Binet,*53 AD2d 836). The court’s award of temporary custody of the children to defendant was plainly in the children’s best interest, pursuant to the court’s interpretation of the conflicting evidence before it *(Matter of Ebert v Ebert,*38 NY2d 700; *Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89). In both these matters, the proper remedy for any inequity is a prompt trial *(Bennett v Bennett,*105 AD2d 1047). This is particularly true in this case, where the court made it clear that the arrangements were intended for the short term only, pending receipt of psychiatric and progress reports. While the restrictions upon plaintiffs visitation rights at that time were supported by the evidence, we leave the issue of whether visitation rights should be expanded based upon current circumstances to Supreme Court *(see, Shink v Shink,*140 AD2d 506). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------


               KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned
directors and officers of BRUSH WELLMAN INC., an Ohio corporation (the
"Corporation"), hereby constitutes and appoints Gordon D. Harnett, Carl Cramer,
Michael C. Hasychak, Leigh B. Trevor and Louis Rorimer, and each of them, their
true and lawful attorney or attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution
and revocation, for them and in their names, place and stead, to sign on their
behalf as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of the
Corporation, an Annual Report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996,
and to sign any and all amendments to such Annual Report, and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission granting unto said attorney or
attorneys-in-fact, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform
each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as they might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney or
attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their substitute or substitutes, may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

               IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands
as of the 4th day of March, 1997.


/s/ Gordon D. Harnett                       /s/ Gerald C. McDonough
--------------------------------            -----------------------------------
Gordon D. Harnett, Chairman, President,      Gerald C. McDonough, Director
Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ Albert C. Bersticker                    /s/ Robert M. McInnes
--------------------------------            ----------------------------------
Albert C. Bersticker, Director              Robert M. McInnes, Director

/s/ Charles F. Brush                        /s/ Henry G. Piper
--------------------------------            -----------------------------------
Charles F. Brush, III, Director             Henry G. Piper, Director

/s/ Frank B. Carr                           /s/ John Sherwin, Jr.
--------------------------------            -----------------------------------
Frank B. Carr,  Director                    John Sherwin, Jr., Director

/s/ William P. Madar                        /s/ David L. Burner
--------------------------------            -----------------------------------
William P. Madar, Director                  David L. Burner, Director

/s/ Carl Cramer                             /s/ James P. Mooney
--------------------------------            -----------------------------------
Carl Cramer, Vice President                 James P. Mooney, Director
Finance and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Glen BULLOCK, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 15626.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 4, 1979.

Jack W. Kunkler of Salt Lake Legal Def. Assn., Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Robert B. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Craig L. Barlow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

MAUGHAN, Justice:

Bullock was co-defendant with one Austin in an aggravated robbery charge, incident to a holdup at the Carlton Hotel. He was convicted as charged, and appealed. We affirm the conviction.

All of the issues concerning the search and seizure raised by Bullock were at issue in the appeal of Bullock’s co-defendant, one Austin. That case1 disposed of the same search and seizure issues, and is controlling here.

Bullock raises an additional issue viz., double jeopardy.

Bullock was on probation at the time of his arrest, and his probation was revoked prior to trial. Bullock claims this defense, because the same elements used to justify revocation of his probation were used to convict him of the crime. Such a point has no merit.2 A person on parole or probation, who commits crime, may have his limited liberty canceled; and also be punished for the new crime. Such does not violate our constitution, Art. I, Sec. 14.3

ELLETT, C. J., and WILKINS, CROCKETT and HALL, JJ., concur.

1

. *State of Utah v. Austin,*Utah, 584 P.2d 853 (1978).

2

. *Morrissey v. Brewer,*408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).

3

. See also *State v. Montgomery,*3 Or.App. 555, 474 P.2d 780 (1970); *Brimhall v. Turner,*28 Utah 2d 321, 502 P.2d 116 (1972), and *Standlee*v. *Smith,*83 Wash.2d 405, 518 P.2d 721 (1974).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### United States Institute of Peace

# AGENCY:

United States Institute of Peace.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Micro Support Program on International Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding. The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) requests proposals to develop and manage a new micro support initiative for projects undertaken at institutions of higher learning and public libraries in the United States. The program will require the contractor to design and implement a formal competition, review and recommend projects for funding, and provide financial and report management oversight.

Deadline: Friday, May 11, 2012 at 3 p.m. EDT.

# DATES:

Response Deadline: Friday, May 11, 2012 at 3 p.m. EDT

April 16, 2012—Issue Request for Proposals

May 11, 2012—RFP submissions due by 3 p.m.

May 14-25, 2012—Review submissions and selection of successful organization

May 29, 2012—Announce results of selection process.

# ADDRESSES:

                        United States Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037, (202) 429-3842 (phone), (202) 833-1018 (fax), (202) 457-1719 (TTY), Email:                         *grants@usip.org.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The Grant Program  • Micro Support Program, Phone (202) 429-3842, Email:                         *grants@usip.org.*

Dated: April 17, 2012.

 Michael Graham, 

Senior Vice President for Management.

[FR Doc. 2012-9822 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-AR-P
Order entered April 13, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00147-CR

No. 05-14-00148-CR

ROBERT EARL MARZETT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 001-83797-2014, 001-83796-2014

ORDER

Appellant appeals his convictions, following trial de novo, of two Class C misdemeanors. 

The clerk’s records have been filed. The reporter’s record has not been filed and it is now 

overdue. On April 2, 2015, court reporter Thomas Mullins filed a letter stating appellant has not 

paid the balance due on the reporter’s record. On April 10, 2015, appellant filed a letter stating 

he has paid $1575 towards the reporter’s record and owes a balance of $253.50. Appellant 

further states that he has made arrangements with Mr. Mullins to pay the balance by May 6, 

2015, and asks for an extension of time until that date to pay the balance. We will treat this as a 

motion and, as such, GRANT the motion.
We ORDER appellant to provide this Court with proof, by MAY 6, 2015, that he has 

made payment of the balance due on the reporter’s record.

We ORDER Thomas Mullins to file, by JUNE 5, 2015, either the complete reporter’s 

record, including all exhibits admitted into evidence, or the portion of the reporter’s record for 

which he has received payment. If only a partial record is filed, Mr. Mullins shall include with 

the record written verification that appellant did not make full payment and identify the portion 

of the record not being filed. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

Thomas Mullins, official court reporter, County Court at Law No. 1; Robert Marzett; and the 

Collin County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 17, 2015

No. 04-14-00894-CR

Adam Paul EANNARINO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR8490

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDE R

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

Appellant’s brief is due June 1, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART FIVE

THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION

THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION

TITLE III

COOPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES AND HUMANITARIAN AID

COOPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES AND HUMANITARIAN AID

CHAPTER 1

DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION

Article 208

(ex Article 177 TEC)

(ex Article 177 TEC)

1.   Union policy in the field of development cooperation shall be conducted within the framework of the principles and objectives of the Union's external action. The Union's development cooperation policy and that of the Member States complement and reinforce each other.

Union development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty. The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries.

2.   The Union and the Member States shall comply with the commitments and take account of the objectives they have approved in the context of the United Nations and other competent international organisations.

---
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP) 

Date: May 31, 2006______________________

Subject: Sunset Review - 205.603; Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic 

livestock production 

Chair: Kevin R. O’Rell_________________________________ 

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: __XXXXXX______ 

Guidance Statement: _

Other: ________ 

Statement of the Recommendation:

See attached Recommendation for NOT Renewing Milk Replacers as Synthetic substances 

allowed for use in organic livestock production on 205.603, category use (c) as feed 

supplements. 

NOSB Vote: 

Moved: Hue Karreman Second: Nancy Ostiguy 

Yes – 11 

No – 1 

Abstain – 0 

Absent- 2 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation:

NOSB Sunset Material Vote 

Response by the NOP:
National Organic Standards Board 

Livestock Committee 

Final Recommendation for the Synthetic substances allowed for use in 

organic livestock production 

April 20, 2006

Category Use 

(c) As feed supplements 

Committee Summary: 

Several commentors supported the continued listing of milk replacers. One commentor 

questioned the continued listing of non-organic milk replacer since organic milk 

replacers or their equivalent are available. The Livestock Committee agrees with the 

commentor who indicated organic milk replacers or their equivalent are available and 

thus non-organic milk replacers no longer need to be on the National List. The Livestock 

Committee believes milk replacers can be removed from the list without adversely 

affecting organic livestock production. 

NOSB Recommendation(s): 

Recommendations Made that are Based upon Comments Received – 205.603(c) 

The NOSB recommends NOT renewing the following substance(s): 

Milk replacers—without antibiotics, as emergency use only, no nonmilk products or 

products from BST treated animals. 

Moved: Hue Karreman Second: Nancy Ostiguy 

Board vote: Yes – 11 No – 1 Abstain – 0 Absent - 2