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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 99 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 99

    Expressing support for the designation of October 28, 2020, as 
            ``Honoring the Nation's First Responders Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2020

   Ms. DeLauro (for herself and Mr. King of New York) submitted the 
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing support for the designation of October 28, 2020, as 
            ``Honoring the Nation's First Responders Day''.

Whereas, in the United States, first responders include professional and 
        volunteer firefighters, police officers, emergency medical technicians, 
        and paramedics;
Whereas, according to a 2017 compilation of data on the Emergency Services 
        Sector in the United States by the Department of Homeland Security, 
        ``The first responder community comprises an estimated 4.6 million 
        career and volunteer professionals within five primary disciplines: Law 
        Enforcement, Fire and Rescue Services, Emergency Medical Services, 
        Emergency Management, and Public Works.'';
Whereas first responders deserve to be recognized for their commitment to 
        safety, defense, and honor;
Whereas the people of the United States have depended on the service and 
        sacrifices of first responders during the national emergency relating to 
        the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; and
Whereas October 28, 2020, would be an appropriate day to establish as ``Honoring 
        the Nation's First Responders Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) supports the designation of ``Honoring the Nation's 
        First Responders Day'';
            (2) honors and recognizes the contributions of first 
        responders; and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        Honoring the Nation's First Responders Day with appropriate 
        ceremonies and activities that promote awareness of the 
        contributions of first responders in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
# 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 ONE

PRINCIPLES

PRINCIPLES

TITLE II

PROVISIONS HAVING GENERAL APPLICATION

PROVISIONS HAVING GENERAL APPLICATION

Article 9

In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health.

---
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, William L. Bridgford, Chairman of the
Board of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| | (1) |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
      the Company for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2008 (the Report)
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d));
    and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    
| | (2) |  | the information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                  
| |    

|Dated: January 28,
      2009 |                                    
|----------------------------- | -----------------------------------
|                             
|                              | /s/ WILLIAM L. BRIDGFORD           
|                              | William L.
      Bridgford,        
|                              | Chairman of the
      Board        
|                              | (Principal Executive
      Officer)

---
LLzl): of fht-

?.d. Soyt I230&1 CAtzroL SrAfz^s

Xvi &**uc u^ry^ rJor^z ^Mtrf'*u**e

•T^fe £LvLlc-CH<&2> hAnX£L Of ttA*ffc& &?urrfSf -

-f#£ AdQUE UAzr dJ^cAJZ /Jet'/*/?£**

<7HAfJK LL* fo/L V&u ~&^£~

0

I t>C l
I have two questions I'd like for you to address:

1) Is a background check going to be mandatory for a cultivation license through the USDA Farm Bill, pertaining to hemp? And, if so, why are we only concerned with people with a previous "controlled substance" charge? This seems unconstitutional and wrong. Can you explain? 

2) What are the options for the plants that go over 0.3% thc? I believe we should still be using this plant material, although not for human or animal consumption. We should still be able to turn these plants into hempcrete, plastics, bio fuels, clothing, animal bedding, ect. It's not fair to a farmer coming onto a new market (as we all are) and have to chance losing everything. These genetics are so new, and unstable. I believe we should have a small leeway, such as up to 2% thc can be processed into another commodity not for human or animal consumption. 

I believe we need to treat growing hemp just like we do growing corn or beans. I realize with the stance on marijuana currently we have a perimeter to be worried about, but I believe we are close to de-classifying marijuana all together, then the thc% won't matter. Just like in the olden days. There will be hemp for medicinal use (which will include hemp, and what we know to be marijuana) and industrial use. Before hemp and marijuana was made illegal, there was no difference. Marijuana is a made-up name to make it sound Mexican, which I'm sure you know, is wrong. We need to get back to it's all cannabis, just different concentrations of cannabinoids. I'm sure you know this too, but, before it was made illegal, if you were a farmer, a percentage of your land had to be cultivated hemp - this is how you would pay your taxes to the government. 

We need to open up this opportunity to our American farmers with the least restrictions possible.  

I've attached a copy of the OAR Bill, which is a bill I've been sharing with lawmakers of Ohio. Feel free to look at and use any of it. It is best practices from eight different states pertaining to hemp.  

Please contact me with any questions, or your answers.

Thank you,

Julie Doran

Meigs Fertilizer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

Nos. 13-2242 & 14-3421

_____________

CARNELL GIBBS,

Appellant

v.

GREG BARTKOWSKI; ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY; 

CHARLES WARREN

_____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

District Court No. 1-11-cv-01137

District Judge: The Honorable Noel L. Hillman

_____________ 

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

April 10, 2015

Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.

___________ 

JUDGMENT ORDER

___________

Appellant Carnell Gibbs filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on 

February 9, 2011. In an order dated March 18, 2013, the District Court dismissed that 

petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). We granted a certificate of 

appealability to address whether the limitations period on Gibbs’s petition should have 

been tolled between January 9, 2008, when the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate 
2

Division, began considering the merits of Gibbs’s initially untimely appeal of the 

dismissal of his state-court collateral-review application, and October 7, 2010, when the 

New Jersey Supreme Court denied Gibbs’s petition for review. In a letter brief dated 

February 19, 2015, Appellees conceded that the limitations period should have been 

tolled during that period, and that as a result, Gibbs’s petition was not time-barred. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court entered 

March 18, 2013, be and is hereby VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further 

proceedings.

*

By the Court,

s/ Thomas I. Vanaskie

Circuit Judge

ATTEST:

s/Marcia M. Waldron

Clerk

Dated: April 17, 2015

CLW/JK/cc: All Counsel of Record

 

* The Third Circuit Court of Appeals gratefully acknowledges the Appellate Litigation

Clinic at Drexel University School of Law, Richard H. Frankel, Esq, and law students 

Mina Khalil and Christopher Bailes for their representation of appellant Carnell Gibbs 

before the Court.
<PAGE>

Consent of Independent Accountants
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of Boston Edison Company on Form S-3 (File No. 33-57840) of our
report dated January 26, 2000 on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of Boston Edison Company as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1999, which report
is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                         By:  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                              ----------------------------------
                                  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
January 26, 2000

                                      50
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.21.1

                             IGI

            IGI RESOURCES, INC.

                                        September 24, 1999

                                        Via Facsimile

Ms. Patricia Gable
Cascade Natural Gas Corporation
222 Fairview Avenue
Seattle, WA 98109

          RE:       Supply Confirmation

Dear Patty:

This is to confirm our arrangement for the term supply and price IGI will sell
to CNG.

          Term:     October 1, 1999 through and including March 31, 2000

          Point:    Kingsgate, into PG&E Gas Transmission-Northwest

          Volume:   7,446 Dth/Day

          Price:    $ < * > US per Dth at AECO-C Hub plus the actual cost of
                    firm NOVA re-delivery service and firm ANG receipt and
                    re-delivery service plus any applicable variables and
                    fuel-in-kind.

          Other:    A new Exhibit "A" will be forthcoming.

                                   Sincerely,

                                   Diane M. Clark
                                   Manager - Transportation Services

< * > = Redacted
<PAGE>

                                    AMENDED

                                   EXHIBIT "A"

                              GAS PURCHASE CONTRACT

                             As Of: October 1, 1994

                                     Between

                    CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION ("BUYER")

                                       and

                         IGI RESOURCES, INC. ('SELLER")

Effective Date of this Exhibit "A":     October 1, 1999

ENDING DATE OF THIS EXHIBIT "A":        MARCH 31, 2000

DELIVERY POINT                          As defined in Section 1.01(g) of
                                        the Contract noted above

MAXIMUM DAILY CONTRACT QUANTITY (MMBTU) 7,446

DELIVERY POINT SELLING PRICE

1.    The Delivery Point Selling Price shall be equal to   < * >
      ($ < * > U.S. dry) per MMBTU at AECO-C Rub plus the actual
      cost of firm NOVA re-delivery service and firm ANG receipt and
      re-delivery service plus any applicable allowance for fuel-in-kind
      associated with such services.

                                        "BUYER"
                                        CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION

                                        By:

                                        Name -

                                        Title: VICE-PRESIDENT GAS SUPPLY



                                        "SELLER"
                                        IGI RESOURCES

                                        BY:
                                             Randy Schultz
                                             Executive Vice President
                                                  Chief Operating Officer

< * > = Redacted
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,

 Respondent

 v.

EDISON MCPHERSON AND DEBORAH

MCPHERSON,

 Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 74 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

ALTON D. BROWN (A/K/A POLITICAL 

PRISONER #DL 4886), 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 45 MM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Prohibition is DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 251st District Court of Randall County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on December

23, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Robert Emmanuel Digman v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-13-00114-CR Trial Court Number: 24,202-C

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 23, 2014, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be reversed and this cause is

remanded to the trial court.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on April 17, 2015.

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

FILE COPY
#### Susan Aruck, Respondent, v Samuel Aruck, Appellant.

—Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and application denied. Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s application for an upward modification of the child support provided in the parties’ separation agreement. We agree. Plaintiff’s proof failed to establish either an unanticipated and unreasonable change of circumstances *(see, Matter of Boden v Boden,*42 NY2d 210, 213), or a change warranting an upward modification in the best interest of the children *(see, Matter of Michaels v Michaels,*56 NY2d 924; *Matter of Brescia v Fitts,*56 NY2d 132). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Henry, Jr., J.—Child Support.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Denman, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CAPSTEAD
SECURITIES CORPORATION IV'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             217
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 357,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               46
<BONDS>                                        350,886
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   357,938
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,234
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,393
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,393
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,393
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
ORDER OF MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PANEL

Order Pronounced April 17, 2015 

14-0882 IN RE FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY WIND/HAIL STORM 

LITIGATION 

Farmers Insurance Company's Third Amended Appendix A is filed. The cases 

listed in that appendix, and all tag-along cases, are transferred to the three pre-trial courts 

established by the order of April 7. Matters such as disposition of the stay order and 

docketing details will be decided by the pretrial courts.
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00555

- CR

Robert MARTINEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From t he County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 307125 Honorable Jason K. Pulliam, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

O n January 26, 2015, the trial court granted the previous court

- appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, and appointed Pat rick B. Montgomery as counsel for Appellant. Appellant’s brief was due on February 16, 2015.

On March 9, 2015, in his first motion for an extension of time, counsel moved this court

to grant a thirty

- day extension of time to file Appellant’ s brief. Appellant ’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due to be filed in this court on April 8, 2015.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 11th day of March, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000015511
<NAME> THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              95
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      663<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                        71<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                        244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,299<F1>
<PP&E>                                          25,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,667<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,131<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,788
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,667<F1>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,936
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 293
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,939
<INCOME-TAX>                                       733
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,206
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,206
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>RESTATEMENT REFLECTED HEREIN IS THE RESULT OF RECLASSIFICATIONS TO PRIOR
PERIODS' FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO CONFORM TO THE CURRENT PERIOD PRESENTATION.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### 185 Madison Associates, Appellant, v Tom Ryan, Also Known as Thomas B. Ryan, Respondent.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered June 22, 1990, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and plaintiff’s motion is granted, with costs. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Contrary to the finding of the IAS court, there is no conflict between paragraph 40 of the lease which provides that, in the event of a subletting, the tenant, Ryan Consulting Group, Inc., remains responsible for the payment of all rents due under the lease, and the clause in Ryan Consulting Group’s assignment of the lease to Robert Henkel and Associates, Inc. whereby the assignee agreed to be solely responsible for the rent. The assignment is solely an agreement between the tenant and subtenant and the plaintiff landlord’s consent to the sublease did not relieve the tenant from its obligation under the lease or defendant from his personal guarantee of the tenant’s full performance of the lease. It is well settled that in order to relieve the original tenant-assignor from its continuing liability after assignment, it must be expressly shown that the lessor not only consented to the assignment, but accepted the assignee in place of the tenant and such release of the tenant must either be express or implied from facts other than the lessor’s mere consent to the assignment and its acceptance of rent from the assignee (74 NY Jur 2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 692). Where the lease, including defendant’s guarantee, is complete upon its face, defendant’s claim of a contradictory oral agreement is insufficient to create an issue of fact or defeat summary judgment. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.