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

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 605 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Office of 

Technology Assessment should be reestablished. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2016 

Mr. FOSTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the Office of Technology Assessment should be reestablished. 

Whereas the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was 

created in 1972 to provide Members of Congress and 

congressional committees with objective analysis of increasingly complex scientific and technical issues faced by 

our country; 

Whereas for over 20 years and 11 sessions of Congress, the 

OTA produced trustworthy, nonpartisan technical reports 

on issues as far ranging as nuclear arms control, electronic health records, and oil and shale technologies; 

Whereas the expertise provided by the OTA saved taxpayers 

billions of dollars by identifying cost-effective areas for 

future investment and avoiding wasting money on technologies and policies that did not and could not work; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 605 IH 

Whereas the OTA contributed to the security and economic 

growth of our Nation by providing timely and forward 

looking analysis of technological threats and opportunities; 

Whereas it is frequently necessary for Members of Congress 

to make informed policy decisions about rapidly changing 

technologies that are often outside their technical areas 

of expertise; 

Whereas in the 20 years since Congress has suspended appropriations for the OTA, the United States has missed significant opportunities for reallocating Federal spending 

to better align with current and future technological reality; and 

Whereas 90 organizations came together to call for the OTA 

to be funded once again by Congress: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the legislative process would greatly benefit 

4 from once again having an office dedicated to giving 

5 nonpartisan, technical advice to Congress; 

6 (2) the Office of Technology Assessment rep7 resents a cost-effective improvement to the govern8 ance of our country; and 

9 (3) funding should be restored to the Office of 

10 Technology Assessment. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
907 P.2d 773

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### Enos v. Pacific Transfer & Warehouse, Inc.

18438

10/16/95

Denied

79 Hawai'i 452903 P.2d 1273
1

MEMORANDUM

TO:   Docket for Navajo Generating Station: EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0009

FROM: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9

DATE: September 13, 2013

RE: Consultation Conference Call on September 13, 2013 with the Hopi Tribe

Participants:

Hopi Tribe (by teleconference)

 Chairman LeRoy Shingoitewa

 Robert Lyttle

EPA Region 9

 Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator

 Deborah Jordan, Air Division

 Colleen McKaughan, Air Division (by teleconference from Arizona)

 Anita Lee, Air Planning Office

 Ann Lyons, Office of Regional Counsel

 Zoe Heller, Office of the Regional Administrator

 Pamela Overman, Tribal Programs Office

Location:

 EPA Region 9 Office in San Francisco, CA

Summary:

 Chairman Shingoitewa and Mr. Lyttle discussed several issues, including:

o the concerns raised in their September 9, 2013 letter to Interior Secretary Jewell regarding NGS

and the Technical Work Group Alternative, especially that the TWG Agreement does not

represent the interests of the Hopi Tribe

o Hopi’s position of neutrality on NGS based on July 2011 resolution passed by the Tribal Council

was forced by provisions of the Lower Colorado River water rights negotiations.

o The revenue Hopi receives from NGS coal‐mining activities is often overstated. Mr. Lyttle

explained that the Hopi receive $9‐11 million per year, with a total budget of $50 million per

year. The tribe’s economy is less dependent on coal mining than it once was.

o The Hopi Tribal Council is looking at all options related to NGS and coal mining on Hopi land.  

Presentation Materials Received (attached):

 None
June 15, 2000

22209

#### Stein v. LeMay

Affirmed
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, DC 20549
 FORM 10-K/A
 Amendment No. 1
 x
 o
  DAYTON SUPERIOR CORPORATION
  Delaware
    
    31-0676346(State of incorporation)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 
   o x
 o x
 x o
 o
  Large accelerated filer    o
    
    Accelerated filer    
xSmaller reporting company    o
    
    Non-accelerated filer    o
 o x




---



##### 








---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  DAYTON SUPERIOR CORPORATIONApril 14, 2008By
    
    /s/ Edward J. PuisisEdward J. Puisis
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



Index of Exhibits
 Exhibit No.
    
    
    
    
    
    Description(31)
    
    
    Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications31.1.1
    
    
    Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of31.2.1
    
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer
Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of
Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
FOR INFORMATION AND ACTION

DA-2014-36

August 25, 2014

Subject: Detection of Egyptian Broomrape (Orobanche aegyptiaca) in California

To: State and Territory Agricultural Regulatory Officials

On July 17, 2014, the PPQ national botanist confirmed the first detection in the United States of 

Egyptian broomrape (EBR), which is a federal noxious weed. It was discovered in a processing 

tomato field in Solano County, California. The California Department of Food and Agriculture

(CDFA) submitted the sample.

EBR infects roughly 30 broadleaf plants, including many economically important crops, such as 

bell pepper, cabbage, carrot, celery, eggplant, melons, potato, tomato, sunflower, and various 

legumes. Some reports cite up to 50 percent yield reduction in watermelon. EBR occurs in 

Africa, the Middle East, several Asian countries, and Eastern Europe.

In response to this detection, CDFA and Solano County are cooperating to:

• gather additional information,

• delimit the pest to assess the scope of the infestation,

• determine appropriate next steps for on-site disposal of plant material, and

• remediate the one infested field of approximately 40-acres.

PPQ is monitoring the situation and providing technical support to CDFA. In addition, PPQ 

Smuggling Interdiction and Trade Compliance personnel are assisting with the trace-forwards 

and the trace-backs.

For additional information about this detection of EBR, please call Eileen Smith at 301-851-

2155. Ms. Smith is PPQ’s national emergency response coordinator for new invasive pests.

/s/

Osama El-Lissy

Deputy Administrator

Plant Protection and Quarantine
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned executive officers of Ameriana Bancorp (the Registrant) hereby certify that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By:

/s/ Jerome J. GassenName:

Jerome J. GassenTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Bradley L. SmithName:

Bradley L. SmithTitle:

Senior Vice President and PrincipalFinancial and Accounting Officer


Date: March 27, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000880416
<NAME>NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                              PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  700,775
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 14,264
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      54,388
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                   203,850
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             973,277
<COMMON>                                         1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  160,999
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         58,931
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             219,931
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                       520,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>               20,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             213,346
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              973,277
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  110,042
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         4,668
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  65,098
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  72,521
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     37,521
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           8,344
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              48,620
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    30,925
<NET-INCOME>                                17,695
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>               17,695
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    18,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                      39,933
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00
        




</TABLE>
#### State v. Bachiller

21219

8/31/98

Vacated & Remanded
#### In re Habeas Corpus of Allen Mearl MORPHIS.

No. H-73-393.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 15, 1974.

Sandlin, Daugherty & Snow, Holden-ville, for petitioner.

David Young, Dist. Atty., Dean Hammond, Asst. Dist. Atty., for respondent.

BLISS, Presiding Judge:

This is an original proceeding in which Allen Mearl Morphis has petitioned this Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking admission to bail pending trial in the District Court of Okfuskee County, Oklahoma, in Case No. CRF-73-22, wherein he stands charged by Information with the crime of Murder in the Second Degree as defined by 21 O.S.Supp.1973, § 701.2, which statute became effective May 17, 1973. Preliminary hearing was conducted June 20, 1973, at the conclusion of which petitioner was held for trial on said charge. He offered no evidence at the preliminary but upon his being held, he demanded and was denied bail in any amount, the State taking the position that Murder in the Second Degree, as defined, is not a bailable offense. Arraignment was held June 20, 1973, and again bail was denied. Petitioner remains in custody of the Sheriff of Okfuskee County.

This original proceeding was filed herein November 13, 1973, and upon hearing held November 20, 1973, with proper parties before the Court, this Court held the petitioner was entitled to be admitted to bail in such amount as the trial court should determine, having had evidence concerning the alleged crime before it.

The punishment prescribed by statute for conviction for Murder in the Second Degree is as follows:

> “Every person convicted of Murder in the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for not less than ten (10) years nor more than life. The trial court shall set an indeterminate sentence in accordance” “with this section upon a finding of guilty by the jury of murder in the second degree.” (21 O.S.Supp.1973, Sec. 701.4, effective May 17, 1973.)

*316Article 2, Oklahoma Constitution, Section 8, provides as follows:

> “All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof of guilt is evident, or the presumption thereof is great.”

In keeping with this constitutional provision is the following statute:

> “Bail, by sufficient sureties, shall be admitted upon all arrests in criminal cases where the offense is not punishable by death * * *.” (22 O.S.1971, Sec. 1101.)

Is Murder in the Second Degree, as defined above, a “capital offense?” It is not. In Ex parte Herndon, 18 Okl.Cr. 68, 192 P. 820 (1920) this Court held:

> “A ‘capital offense’ is one where the punishment may be death.”

Accordingly, petitioner should be admitted to bail. This Court has no evidence at all before it as to the particulars of the alleged crime but the trial court does have, and it is ordered and directed to admit the petitioner to bail in such amount as it deems fair and just.

BRETT and BUSSEY, JJ., concur.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Organizational Structure

Last Modified: 

Print

Counseling and Resolution Branch

Primarily responsible for providing leadership, guidance and action for the APHIS

EEO Discrimination complaint process in compliance with federal EEO laws,

regulation, and policies. 

Develops and implements training to Agency employees to provide awareness on

EEO Laws and the complaint process.

Explanation of the EEO Complaints Process-English

Explanation of the EEO Complaints Process-Spanish

Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy  (39.84 KB)

EEO Frequently Asked Questions

Office of Civil Rights

Facilitates fair and equitable treatment of all APHIS employees and stakeholders

pursuant to existing laws, Executive Orders and regulations with the goal of

eliminating unlawful workplace and program discrimination in Federal employment

and in activities that receive funding from APHIS, on the basis of race, color, national

origin, sex (including sexual orientation), age, religion, reprisal, protected genetic

information and disability.
Compliance and Evaluation Branch 

Primarily responsible for ensuring internal and external EEO program compliance

with federal EEO laws, regulations, and policies.

And Justice For All Poster

Limited English Proficiency

How to File a Complaint of Discrimination Against an APHIS Program or Activity

Program Discrimination Complaints Receipts and Processing (439.76 KB)

Office of Diversity and Inclusion

Collaborates and coordinates with Human Resources to implement diversity in

hiring, retention and promotion to create a diverse, results-oriented, high-performing

workforce.

Develops and implements training to Agency employees to provide awareness on

diversity and inclusion.

Provides support and guidance to special emphasis programs and managers

represented throughout the APHIS workforce, by sponsoring training/educational

opportunities and cultural programs to enhance the diversity and inclusion mission.

Civil Rights and Diversity Advisory Committee-Special Emphasis Program

Outreach and Communications

Works cohesively with USDA Departmental Outreach Office and APHIS Programs to

partner with program and community-based organizations, cooperators, universities

and other stakeholders in delivering outreach activities that address the needs of

minority-based organizations who provide agricultural-based services to

underrepresented communities. 

 Our services include:

Expanding communication networks

Collaborating efforts with other programs within the Agency and discussing

their outreach efforts;

Partnering with Human Resources to plan recruiting efforts;
Creating an outreach newsletter to provide information to programs and

organizations on the services the Agency provides;

Expanding outreach efforts (cooperative agreements/sponsorships/programssocially disadvantaged groups); and

Expanding student internships to underrepresented groups
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

LINDA MAE WILLIAMS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2531 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed August 16, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Charles E. Roberts, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Karen M. Kinney, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
KHOUZAM, C.J., and KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
# C_2018445EN.01001201.xml

| 10.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 445/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 445/12

---

Action brought on 12 October 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-642/18)

(2018/C 445/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, E. Sanfrutos Cano and F. Thiran, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,






  — | that, by not adopting waste management plans in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, (1) or by not having revised those plans in accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC concerning the Autonomous Communities of Aragon, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Madrid and the Autonomous City of Ceuta, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) and Article 30(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

that, by not adopting waste management plans in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, (1) or by not having revised those plans in accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC concerning the Autonomous Communities of Aragon, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Madrid and the Autonomous City of Ceuta, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) and Article 30(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC; and

| — | that, by not officially informing the Commission of the adoption or revision of the waste management plans concerning the Autonomous Communities of Aragon, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Madrid and the Autonomous City of Ceuta, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

that, by not officially informing the Commission of the adoption or revision of the waste management plans concerning the Autonomous Communities of Aragon, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Madrid and the Autonomous City of Ceuta, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC;

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned subparagraphs and articles of Directive 2008/98/EC by not adopting the required measures before 14 September 2017, the date laid down in its reasoned opinion of 14 July 2017.

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.

---
_____________ No. 96-1939MN No. 96-2449MN

_____________ St. Paul Fire and Marine * Insurance Company; North Star * Transport, Inc., a Minnesota * corporation, * * Plaintiffs-Appellees, * Appeals from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Acceptance Insurance Company, * [UNPUBLISHED] a Nebraska corporation; * * Defendant-Appellant, * * John Clear, * * Defendant. *

_____________ Submitted: February 14, 1997 Filed: February 21, 1997

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Acceptance Insurance Company (Acceptance) appeals from advers e decisions in this diversity-based insurance coverage dispute. Acceptance co ntends the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant declarator y relief. Acceptance a lso contends the district court improperly submitted the fact -based coverage issue to a jury and erroneously ruled tha t Acceptance's policy provided primary coverage. Finally, Acceptance attack s the award of attorney's fees and expenses and the reasonableness of th e award. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs, we find no error by the district court. We also conclude t hat an extended discussion

### -2-

of the state law issues will serve no useful purpose. We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-59,535-07

IN RE REGINALD TYRONE HOLLINS, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 9411011-C IN THE 351ST DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this

Court’s original jurisdiction. He alleges that he filed pleadings in the district court that were not

forwarded to thisCourt. Relator identifies: his Memorandum and a supporting Appendix that he filed

with his Article 11.07 application on Feb. 24, 2022; his Reply to the State’s Answer, and his

Amended Proposed Findings and Conclusions, both filed on April 11, 2022; and his “Admission of

Error and Motion for Court to Take Judicial Notice of Previous Proceedings to Correct and Make

Record of Error,” filed on April 14, 2022. Relator also contends that he has not received notice and

copies of the State’s pleadings and the trial court’s orders. See Art. 11.07 § 7; TEX. R. APP. PROC.

73.4(b)(2).
2

The district clerk has a ministerial duty to include in the record transmitted to this Court

“among any other pertinent papers or supplements,” a copy of the application, any answers filed, any

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions

of law, and any objections to the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by either party.

See Art. 11.07, § 3(c); TEX. R. APP. PROC. 73.4(b)(4). The clerk also has a ministerial duty send

copies to all parties in the case when certain materials are filed or made part of the record, and to

“immediately notify all parties in the case” when the clerk transmits the record to this Court. TEX.

R. APP. PROC. 73.4(b)(2). 

Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris County, shall forward to this Court Relator’s

pleadings identified above or shall respond that Relator has not filed them or made them part of the

record. See TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(c) and (d); TEX.R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(5). The clerk

shall notify the parties when the clerk transmits the record to this Court. TEX.R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(2).

This motion for leave to file will be held. Respondent shall complywith this order within thirty days

from the date of this order.

Filed: AUGUST 24, 2022

Do not publish
21313

#### State v. Ganal

Affirmed
27524

#### Terry v. Terry

Affirmed
15941

#### Ortiz v. Campbell Estate Trust

December 2, 1996

Order No. 96-31

Affirmed
.V/.v licili M Hubbeti 

1158 Woodsidc Or. 

Hasten Ml 43540 

S-' i - '•2. 

~do I 

iJ'Mr.lWcn OF 

k^9^^^:?|p^ilgj^ 

^ •.-.i-..r.','-> t^ . .1—-. -1 . I L ' 

:USO: 

j » 

Support Our Troops
May 27, 2004

25556

#### Doe, In re

Affirmed