alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 139 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 

resource study of the site associated with the 1908 

Springfield Race Riot in the State of Illinois. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 139 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Springfield Race Riot 

3 Study Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. RESOURCE STUDY OF SPRINGFIELD RACE RIOT. 

5 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

6 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

7 the Secretary of the Interior. 

8 (2) STUDY AREA.—The term ‘‘study area’’ 

9 means the archeological site near Madison Street 

10 and the 10th Street Rail Corridor, and other sites 

11 in Springfield, Illinois associated with the 1908 

12 Springfield Race Riot. 

13 (b) SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.— 

14 (1) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a spe15 cial resource study of the study area. 

16 (2) CONTENTS.—In conducting the study under 

17 paragraph (1), the Secretary shall— 

18 (A) evaluate the national significance of 

19 the study area; 

20 (B) determine the suitability and feasibility 

21 of designating the study area as a unit of the 

22 National Park System; 

23 (C) consider other alternatives for preser24 vation, protection, and interpretation of the 

25 study area by the Federal Government, State or 
3 

•HR 139 EH

1 local government entities, or private and non2 profit organizations; 

3 (D) consult with interested Federal agen4 cies, State or local governmental entities, pri5 vate and nonprofit organizations, or any other 

6 interested individuals; and 

7 (E) identify cost estimates for any Federal 

8 acquisition, development, interpretation, oper9 ation, and maintenance associated with the al10 ternatives. 

11 (3) APPLICABLE LAW.—The study required 

12 under paragraph (1) shall be conducted in accord13 ance with section 100507 of title 54, United States 

14 Code. 

15 (4) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the 

16 date on which funds are first made available for the 

17 study under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall sub18 mit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 

19 House of Representatives and the Committee on En20 ergy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report 

21 that describes— 

22 (A) the results of the study; and 
4 

•HR 139 EH

1 (B) any conclusions and recommendations 

2 of the Secretary. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 21, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 139 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 

of Illinois. with the 1908 Springfield Race Riot in the State a special resource study of the site associated
# C_2016202EN.01004401.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/44

---

Article 54

(ex Article 52 TEU)

(ex Article 52 TEU)

1.   This Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of the Italian Republic.

2.   This Treaty shall enter into force on 1 January 1993, provided that all the Instruments of ratification have been deposited, or, failing that, on the first day of the month following the deposit of the Instrument of ratification by the last signatory State to take this step.

---
USDA Market Reports

A Producer Perspective 

Scott Hays, Vice President

National Pork Producers Council
Meet Scott

• Vice President of the National Pork 

Producers Council

• A 5th generation pork producer 

from Monroe City, MO

• Two-Mile pork is a family 

operation

• Growing up, Uncle Pat handled 

the marketing
Markets – A Look Back

• Daily Markets

•Given on the radio

•Charted by hand

• Marketed Pigs

•Cash sales

•Day of delivery

• Inefficiencies were high
Today’s Markets Have:

Longer-term agreements

Formula prices tied to: 

• CME index

• Cutout report 602

• Cash market/western 

cornbelt 212

• CME futures

• Cash sales

Individual carcass data

• Monitoring weights

• Adjusting load count

More Efficiencies

• Labor

• Transportation

• Scheduling
USDA Reports

• National daily hog and pork 

summary

• Daily Routine?

• “Hit” refresh at 4:00

• Enter data into a spreadsheet

• Pull CME index to same spreadsheet

• Reference charts on daily summary reporting site

Spreadsheet figures daily price paid by packer and allows “what 

if” scenarios when negotiating packer agreements
USDA Reports

• Other reports referenced include: 

•Weaned feeder pig report – LS255

• Afternoon live hog report – HG217

•Cull sow/boar report – HG234
Where We Are Today...

• Finding and charting data is simpler than it was during 

Uncle Pat’s day, BUT...marketing hasn’t gotten any easier

• The accurate information provided by these reports is key
NPPC Competitive Markets 

Committee Request on LMR

• Goal? To enhance report clarity and 

accuracy. Specific requests included: 

Splitting the swine and pork market formula

• Will provide a better understanding of cut-out price

Pulling out the non-carcass merit premium

• Will become more important as more markets like that 

established due to Prop. 12 develop
In Summary...

• As more hedging tools become available, 

like the Livestock Revenue Protection 

(LRP) tool and CME cut-out contract 

develop, it is important to have the USDA 

report for our marketing decisions
State

Table 3bx

Percentage of M¡lk from Counties with Five or More Paying Handlers

December 2008

IA

IL

IN

KY

MD

ME

M1

MN

MO

NC

NH

NM

NY

OH

OK

PA

TN

TX

VA

VT

WI

19

t7

18

2t

24

23

26

27

29

37

33

35

36

39

40

42

47

48

51

50

55

66.27%

25.560/o

27.45o/o

38.33%

48.25Yo

72.78o/o

53.32o/o

84s2%

22.99o/o

4050%

55.79o/o

24.73o/o

92.76%o

s6.69%

7.37o/o

97.50Yo

t2.75o/o

L6.57o/o

68.LOo/o

59.630/o

99.26%

Prepared by:

Market Administrator's Office

Minneapolis, M¡nnesota

November 2009

1. For each state, the total milk pooled on Federal orders, from counties meeting the criteria divíded by total milk

pooled on Federal orders.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-119-CR

CARA DAWN STOGSDILL	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 43RD  DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	In a single issue, appellant Cara Dawn Stogsdill (“Stogsdill”) appeals her conviction of possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, in the amount less than one gram, arguing that the trial court erred in overruling her motion to suppress evidence because it was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure.  We affirm.

	We need not address the merits of Stogsdill’s issue because it has been waived.  It is well-settled that when a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence is overruled, the accused need not subsequently object to the admission of the same evidence at trial in order to preserve error.  Williams v. State, 834 S.W.2d 502, 507 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref’d.).  However, when the accused affirmatively asserts during trial that she has “no objection” to the admission of the evidence complained of, she waives any error in the admission of the evidence despite the earlier adverse ruling.  See Jones v. State, 962 S.W.2d 158, 167 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).

	Before trial, Stogsdill’s counsel made an oral motion to suppress all the physical evidence seized during a search of Stogsdill’s vehicle on the night she was arrested.  After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion.  When the State introduced the same evidence during the guilt/innocence phase, Stogsdill’s counsel stated that he had “no objection.”  Therefore, Stogsdill has waived her right to complain on appeal about the evidence’s admissibility.  See id.  We overrule Stogsdill’s sole issue.  Having overruled Stogsdill’s sole point, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

								BOB MCCOY

								JUSTICE

PANEL B:	DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 17, 2004
Exhibit 21



                                                               Percentage of
                                            Place of        Outstanding Stock or
                                          Incorporation      Ownership Interest
Name of Subsidiary                       or Organization     Held by Registrant
------------------                       ---------------    --------------------


Cal-Maine Farms, Inc.                      Delaware                 100%

Southern Equipment Distributors, Inc.      Mississippi              100%

South Texas Applicators, Inc.              Delaware                 100%

Cal-Maine Partnership, Ltd.                Texas                     (1)

CMF of Kansas, LLC                         Delaware                  (2)


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


(1)  Limited partnership in which Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. has a 1% General Partner
     interest and Cal-Maine Farms, Inc. has a 99% Limited Partner interest.

(2)  Limited liability company of which Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. and Cal-Maine
     Farms, Inc. are members and have 99% and 1% interests, respectively.
## Appendix A. Rules Establishing State AuthorityThis page intentionally left blank for correct double-sided printing.

## Appendix A. Rules Establishing State Authority

IDAPA 58.01.01 Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho

http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/58/0101.pdf

IDAPA 58.01.23 Rules of Administrative Procedure before the Board of Environmental

Quality

http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/cur rent/58/0123.pdf

Idaho Administrative Code

Title 67 State Government and State Affairs

Chapter 52 Idaho Administrative Procedures Act

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title67/T67CH52.htmThis page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2513

BARBARA HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL HOFFMAN; JOSEPH ROUSE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND; JUDGE RICKS;

JUDGE MULLINS; JUDGE DRYDEN; JUDGE GOUDY;

JUDGE GREENE, JR.; JUDGE KELLER; ASSIGNMENT

OFFICE OF CIRCUIT COURT, ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY;

KERRY ANDERSON; DAVID BOWERS; GALE ANN

BELUCCI; RICHARD BACHARACH, M.D.; DEPARTMENT

OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GINGER HOWARD; INGRID

HOFFMAN; SUE HOUSER; PAM ZIOLKOWSKI; BERNIE

DIVVER; EASTERN DISTRICT POLICE DEPARTMENT OF

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96-

2927-AMD)

Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1997

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barbara Hoffman, Appellant Pro Se.
2
3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), as amended by Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321,

Appellant's personal injury claim. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hoffman v.

Hoffman, No. CA-96-2927-AMD (D. Md. Sept. 23, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2016202EN.01018501.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/185 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/185

---

Article 315

(ex Article 273 TEC)

(ex Article 273 TEC)

If, at the beginning of a financial year, the budget has not yet been definitively adopted, a sum equivalent to not more than one twelfth of the budget appropriations for the preceding financial year may be spent each month in respect of any chapter of the budget in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations made pursuant to Article 322; that sum shall not, however, exceed one twelfth of the appropriations provided for in the same chapter of the draft budget.

The Council on a proposal by the Commission, may, provided that the other conditions laid down in the first paragraph are observed, authorise expenditure in excess of one twelfth in accordance with the regulations made pursuant to Article 322. The Council shall forward the decision immediately to the European Parliament.

The decision referred to in the second paragraph shall lay down the necessary measures relating to resources to ensure application of this Article, in accordance with the acts referred to in Article 311.

It shall enter into force thirty days following its adoption if the European Parliament, acting by a majority of its component Members, has not decided to reduce this expenditure within that time-limit.

---
# 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 SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1

THE INSTITUTIONS

SECTION 3

SECTION 3

THE COUNCIL

Article 240

(ex Article 207 TEC)

(ex Article 207 TEC)

1.   A committee consisting of the Permanent Representatives of the Governments of the Member States shall be responsible for preparing the work of the Council and for carrying out the tasks assigned to it by the latter. The Committee may adopt procedural decisions in cases provided for in the Council's Rules of Procedure.

2.   The Council shall be assisted by a General Secretariat, under the responsibility of a Secretary-General appointed by the Council.

The Council shall decide on the organisation of the General Secretariat by a simple majority.

3.   The Council shall act by a simple majority regarding procedural matters and for the adoption of its Rules of Procedure.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4069

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DERRELL V. WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:15-cr-00049-MHL-1)

Submitted: December 6, 2019 Decided: December 18, 2019

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, Nia Ayanna Vidal, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. 

Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

In March 2015, Derrell V. Walker pled guilty to two counts of brandishing a firearm 

in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2018), and aiding 

and abetting in those crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2018). On appeal, Walker 

reiterates his arguments—rejected by the district court in denying Walker’s motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea—that Hobbs Act robbery, the offense underlying his § 924(c) 

convictions, does not qualify as a crime of violence. We affirm.

“We review de novo the question whether an offense qualifies as a crime of 

violence.” United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 263 (4th Cir. 2019), petitions for cert. 

filed, Nos. 19-6423 & 19-6424 (U.S. Oct. 29, 2019). Section 924(c) defines a crime of 

violence as a felony offense that:

(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical 

force against the person or property of another [(the “force clause”)], or 

(B) that[,] by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against 

the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing 

the offense [(the “residual clause”)].

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3).

Both the United States Supreme Court and this court have ruled that the residual 

clause in § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 

2319 (2019); United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229, 237 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 

140 S. Ct. 304 (2019). However, because we recently held that Hobbs Act robbery 

qualifies categorically as a crime of violence under the force clause of § 924(c)(3)(A), 

Mathis, 932 F.3d at 265-66, we find no error in the district court’s rejection of Walker’s 

motion to withdraw his guilty plea on this basis. 
3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny as moot Walker’s 

motion to file a pro se supplemental brief raising additional arguments and authorities 

related to this issue. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Calvin Lomack, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The hearing court properly concluded that the showup identification procedure used in this case was not unduly suggestive. Showup identifications are permissible when conducted proximate in time and place to the alleged crime and to defendant’s detention *(see, People v Shippens,*136 AD2d 944, *lv denied*71 NY2d 1033; *see also, People v Duuvon,*77 NY2d 541; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023, 1024; *People v Smith,*38 NY2d 882, *affg*46 AD2d 639). The fact that the complainant knew that the police were bringing a suspect to his home does not itself render the procedure unduly suggestive. Defendant was identified in the parking area of complainant’s home shortly after he accosted the complainant and directly after his detention by the police. The suppression court’s finding that the procedure was not unduly suggestive is fully supported by the record *(see, People v James,*110 AD2d 1037; *People v Cole,*100 AD2d 442, 445-446; *see also, People v Shippens, supra; People v Perez,*123 AD2d 889, *lv denied*69 NY2d 831).

We also reject defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by improper implicit bolstering. This argument has not been preserved for review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and the error, if any, must be deemed harmless in light of the strong identification testimony offered by the complainant *(see, People v Johnson,*57 NY2d 969; *People v Cabbie,*171 AD2d 517; *1038
      *People v Berni,*134 AD2d 436, *lv denied*70 NY2d 952; *People v Hall,*82 AD2d 838).

Finally, defendant’s contention that he should have a new trial because the court conducted a *Sandoval*hearing in his absence is unpreserved and, in any event, lacks merit in the absence of any allegation of prejudice *(see, People v Favor,*172 AD2d 1052; *People v Dunbar,*172 AD2d 1006). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.— Grand Larceny, 4th Degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
# C_2016202EN.01039901.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/399 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/399

---

Article 26

Integration of persons with disabilities

The Union recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.

---
Served: October 13, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 13th of October, 2010

Essential Air Service at

El Centro/Imperial, California

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET OST-2008-0299

NOTICE OF EXTENSION

By letter dated September 23, 2010, we requested comments regarding the proposals by 

SkyWest Airlines, Inc., and Alaska Juneau Aeronautics, Inc., d/b/a SeaPort Airlines for 

EAS at El Centro/Imperial, California, no later than October 21. By email dated 

October 13, 2010, Mr. Bill Turner, the airport manager, requested a two-week extension, 

i.e., to November 4 to respond.

We have decided to grant the request, as the additional amount of time is not unreasonable. 

All parties should file their comments no later than November 4, 2010. 

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016 (the
“Report”), I, L’Sheryl D. Hudson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, 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 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                                                   
|------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 10, 2016 |  | /s/ L’Sheryl D. Hudson                            
|                         |  | L’Sheryl D. Hudson
        Chief Financial Officer
# C_2016202EN.01009401.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/94

---

Article 113

(ex Article 93 TEC)

(ex Article 93 TEC)

The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.

---