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

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 774 

Expressing support for designation of the week of June 6 through June 

12, 2016, as ‘‘Hemp History Week’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2016 

Mr. POLIS (for himself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, and Ms. BONAMICI) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of the week of June 6 

through June 12, 2016, as ‘‘Hemp History Week’’. 

Whereas Hemp History Week will be held from June 6 

through June 12, 2016; 

Whereas the goals of Hemp History Week are to commemorate the historical relevance of industrial hemp in the 

United States and to promote the full growth potential 

of the industrial hemp industry; 

Whereas industrial hemp is an agricultural commodity that 

has been used for centuries to produce many innovative 

industrial and consumer products, including soap, fabric, 

textiles, construction materials, clothing, paper, cosmetics, food, and beverages; 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 774 IH 

Whereas the global market for hemp is estimated to consist 

of more than 25,000 products; 

Whereas the value of hemp imported into the United States 

for use in the production of other retail products is estimated at approximately $76,000,000 annually; 

Whereas the United States hemp industry estimates that the 

annual market value of hemp retail sales in the United 

States is more than $570,000,000; 

Whereas despite the legitimate uses of hemp, many agricultural producers of the United States are prohibited under 

current law from growing hemp; 

Whereas because most hemp cannot be grown legally in the 

United States, raw hemp material and hemp products are 

imported for sale in the United States; 

Whereas the United States is the largest consumer of hemp 

products in the world, but the United States is the only 

major industrialized country that restricts hemp farming; 

Whereas industrial hemp holds great potential to bolster the 

agricultural economy of the United States; and 

Whereas the week of June 6 through June 12, 2016, would 

be an appropriate week to designate as ‘‘Hemp History 

Week’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘Hemp History 

3 Week’’; 

4 (2) recognizes the historical relevance of indus5 trial hemp; and 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 774 IH 

1 (3) recognizes the growing economic potential 

2 of industrial hemp. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Merlin DANSIE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MURRAY CITY, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Utah, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14592.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 16, 1977.

Merrill G. Hansen, Murray City Atty., Murray, for defendant and appellant.

George H. Searle, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

*1124HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from an order granting petitioner a variance from a city ordinance restricting the building of an accessory building with respect to height thereof and commanding the city to permit petitioner to complete construction of the unauthorized project. Reversed and remanded with instructions that the judgment be vacated, and that an order be entered' requiring petitioner to comply with the provisions of Sections 4004(15) and 4001(8) of the Murray City Code, by eliminating any structure already completed that does not comply with the provisions of said sections.

There is no question but that a city employee, one Simper, *having no authority*whatever to do so, led petitioner to believe he could erect a structure that was a departure from the provisions of the sections mentioned, nor that petitioner had secured a license by submitting a floor plan with lateral dimensions shown, but with complete failure to include plans as to the height of the structure, which proved, after the building was started, and partially finished to be three feet higher than that permitted, and quite in violation of Section 4001(8), supra.

The city served notice in writing upon the petitioner “to cease construction pending our complaint for said violations.” This litigation followed.

The city was not bound by the representations of Simper,1 under the circumstances, and petitioner cites no authority otherwise.

The only authority petitioner suggests is rather a self serving ipse dixit to the effect that the court examined the facts submitted and in effect the petition was true and that estoppel should apply. Counsel, not the court, says in his brief, that the ordinance is unreasonable. His main thrust, however, was relief based on estop-pel, and his claim of unreasonableness and unconstitutionality seems to have been gratuitous undefended statements from a factual or decisional nature, lacking in proof and substance.

Besides what has been said above, we believe this case is governed by *Hargraves v. Young,*3 Utah 2d 175, 280 P.2d 974 (1955).

ELLETT and CROCKETT, JJ. concur.

WILKINS, J., concurs in the result.

1

. 3 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, 3rd Ed., Sec. 12.126a; 6 A.L.R.2d 960; 28 Am. Jur.2d, Estoppel and Waiver, Sec. 122.

MAUGHAN, Justice

(dissenting):

Where a municipality maintains a specialized department, one purpose of which is to dispense information to the public about that particular specialty, the municipality should be held accountable for the quality of the information it dispenses. I would sustain the judgment below.
EXHIBIT 10(o)
 
 Notice of Grant of Stock Options
and Option Agreement
    
    Digi International Inc.
ID: 41-1532464
11001 Bren Road East
Minnetonka, MN 55343
 
 Optionee Name
Address City, State USA Zip
    
    Option Number
Plan: 2000
ID:
 
 
 
  Shares
    
    Vest Type
    
    Full Vest
    
    Expiration
 
  
 Digi International Inc.
    
    DateOptionee Name
    
    Date




---



##### 



DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC.
2000 OMNIBUS STOCK PLAN
 Terms and Conditions of Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement
    1. Grant of Option.
 2. Purchase Price.
 3. Option Period.
   1




---



##### 



4. Manner of Exercising Option.
 www.etrade.com/stockplans
 5. Exercisability of Option After Termination of Employment.
   2




---



##### 



6. Acceleration of Option.
 Disability or Death
 Dissolution, Liquidation, Merger
 3




---



##### 



7. Limitation on Transfer.
 8. Stockholder Rights Before Exercise.
 9. Adjustment For Changes in Capitalization.
 10. Tax Withholding.
 4




---



##### 



11. Interpretation of this Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement.
 12. Discontinuance of Employment.
 13. General.
 5




---



##### 



Change in Control
#### SURRENDRA (OVERSEAS) PRIVATE, LTD., Libellant-Appellee, v. S.S. HELLENIC HERO, S.S. HELLENIC SAILOR and Hellenic Lines, Limited, Claimant-Respondent-Appellant.

No. 127, Docket 28270.

.United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 4, 1963.

Decided Nov. 29, 1963.

Burlingham, Underwood, Barron, Wright & White, New York City (Norman M. Barron, Charles L. Trowbridge, New York City, of counsel), for libellantappellee.

*956Hill, Betts, Yamaoka, Freehill & Long-cope, New York City (James E. Freehill, Donald B. Allen, New York City, of counsel), for claimant-respondent-appellant.

Before WATERMAN, MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We afirm the judgment below on the opinion of Judge Cashin, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the trial judge, reported at D.C., 213 F.Supp. 97.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                         SCIENTIFIC GAMES HOLDINGS CORP.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (In Thousands except per share data)






<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Three-month period         Nine-month period
                                                 ended September 30,       ended September 30,
                                                 1997          1996         1997         1996
                                                 ----          ----         ----         ----

<S>                                            <C>            <C>          <C>          <C>    
Net earnings ............................      $  5,030       $ 5,894      $ 3,864      $13,214

ADD:  R&D and Pull-tab product line
  write-offs (credit), net of tax .......          (374)            0       12,128            0
                                               --------       -------      -------      -------

Net earnings excluding write-offs .......         4,656         5,894       15,992       13,214
                                               ========       =======      =======      =======

Weighted average Common stock
outstanding .............................        11,909        12,472       12,072       12,870

Effect of common stock equivalents (stock
  options), at average market price .....           378           519          410          623
                                               --------       -------      -------      -------

         Total ..........................        12,287        12,991       12,482       13,493
                                               ========       =======      =======      =======

Net earnings per common share ...........      $   0.41       $  0.45      $  0.31      $  0.98
                                               ========       =======      =======      =======

Pro forma net earnings per common share,
 excluding write-offs ...................      $   0.38       $  0.45      $  1.28      $  0.98
                                               ========       =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Eugene JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-6804.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 29, 2005.

Decided Oct. 11, 2005.

Kevin Eugene Jones, Appellant pro se.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Eugene Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) for lack of jurisdiction. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a post-conviction proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
June 2018

European Cherry Fruit Fly, Rhagoletis cerasi, Host List 2018

The berries, fruit, nuts and vegetables of the listed plant species are now considered host articles 

for R. cerasi. Unless proven otherwise, all cultivars, varieties, and hybrids of the plant species 

listed herein are considered suitable hosts of R. cerasi.

Scientific Name Common Name

Berberis aquifolium Pursh Holly barberry

Berberis heteropoda Schrenk ex Fisch. & C. A. 

Mey. N/A

Berberis vulgaris L. Common barberry

Cornus sanguinea L. Common dogwood

Lonicera alpigena L. Alpine honeysuckle

Lonicera spp. Honeysuckle

Lonicera tatarica L. Tatarian honeysuckle

Lonicera xylosteum L. European fly honeysuckle

Prunus avium (L.) L. Sweet cherry

Prunus cerasus L. Sour cherry

Prunus mahaleb L. Mahaleb cherry

Prunus serotina Ehrh. Black cherry

Prunus spp. Cherries1

Symphoricarpos albus (L.) S. F. Blake Common snowberry

Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Moench Coralberry

1 All cherry species are regulated
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 1:38 PM 

To: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: RE: OMB/DOE Discussion on Nuclear Uprate Potential 

Hi Bob, 

This meeting and the other two will be held in the White House Conference Center, 726 Jackson 

Place (just east of the NEOB). For this meeting, and the ones next week, I’ll just need list of 

names – no additional information is needed (no SSN or DOBs) for the WHCC. 

 

Specifically, this meeting will be in the Eisenhower Room of the WHCC. 

Regards, 

Cortney 

-----Original Appointment----- 

From: Wayland, Robertj [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 1:22 PM 

To: Wayland, Robertj; Higgins, Cortney; Tsirigotis, Peter; Culligan, Kevin; Harvey, Reid; 

Stenhouse, Jeb; Hutson, Nick; Srivastava, Ravi; Fellner, Christian; Johnson, Mary; 

Johnson, Tanya; King, Melanie; Adamantiades, Mikhail; Eschmann, Erich 

Subject: OMB/DOE Discussion on Nuclear Uprate Potential 

When: Friday, May 09, 2014 2:00 PM-3:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 

Where: TBD (Call-in: 1-866-299-3188, passcode: 919-541-5536) 

 

 

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss EPA’s nuclear uprate approach for BB3 This meeting will 

likely be a face-to-face meeting over at OMB, but I’ve added a call-in number just in case. Cortney 

will advise us at a later date on the location/logistics. 

 

EPA – Please invite other critical/key staff on BB3 as necessary.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24

- 6045

JOVAN M. BROWN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. RON LAWRENZ; ERIC RAMOS; LISA YOUNG , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 6:22

- cv - 01705

- HMH )

Submitted : May 30 , 2024 Decided: June 4, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jovan M. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Quintin Atkinson, Mark Victor Gende, SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6045 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Jovan M. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s September 7, 2023, order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissing Brown’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In civil cases,

pa rties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6 ). The district court may reopen the time to file an appeal if: (1) the court finds that the movant did not receive proper notice of the entry of the judgment within 21 days after entry; (2) the motion to reopen the appeal period is filed within 180 days after the order is entered or within 14 days after the movant rec eives proper notice of the entry, whichever is earlier; and (3) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ).
Brown asserts that he did not receive timely notice of the entry of the district court’s judgment

. W e construe his December 11, 2023, letter as a motion to reopen the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6). ∗ Accordingly, we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether to reopen the appeal period.
REMANDED

∗ Because B rown filed the notice of appeal more than 30 days after the appeal period expired, the motion cannot be construed as a Rule 4(a)(5) motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6045 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Table of Specimen Collection 

SPECIES TISSUES FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL AND 

HISTOLOGICAL EXAMINATION

BLOOD SAMPLES OTHER

Bovine Skin and nasal swabs, prescapular lymph node (LN), body 

cavity fluids, joint fluids, liver, kidney, mesenteric LN, 

lung, heart, tracheal swab, 3" tied-off section of small 

intestine and ileum (affected area if present), 1/2 brain, any 

specific lesion. 

Serum, 10 ml.

Whole blood, 20 ml. 

EDTA. 6 blood 

smears - air dry, fix in 

methanol.

External 

parasites 

(alcohol) 

Porcine Skin swab, fluid from any affected joint, body cavity fluids, 

spleen, liver, kidney, gastrohepatic and mesenteric LN, 

lung, tonsil, 3" tied-off loop of small intestine and colon, 

1/2 brain, any specific lesion. 

Serum, 10 ml. Whole 

blood, 20 ml, EDTA. 

6 blood smears - air 

dry, fix in methanol. 

External 

parasites 

(alcohol) 

Equine Prescapular LN, mandibular LN, body cavity fluids, spleen, 

liver, kidney, mesenteric LN, 1/2 brain, any specific lesion. 

Swabs - if contagious equine metritis suspected.* Mares -

cervical, urethral, clitoral. Stallions - penile sheath, urethral 

fossa, urethra. 

Serum, 20 ml. Whole 

blood, 20 ml, 

heparinized. 6 blood 

smears - air dry, fix in 

methanol. 

External 

parasites 

(alcohol) 

Ovine or 

Caprine

Skin and nasal swab, prescapular LN, mammary tissue, 

body cavity fluids, spleen, liver, kidney, mesenteric LN, 

lung, pleural LN, tracheal and bronchial swabs, 1/2 brain, 

any specific lesion.

Serum, 10 ml. Whole 

blood, 10 ml, 

heparinized. 6 blood 

smears - air dry, fix in 

methanol.

External 

parasites 

(alcohol)

Avian Tracheal and cloacal swabs, liver, spleen, kidney, lung, 

trachea, bone marrow, heart, ovary, brain, terminal 

intestine, bursa of Fabricius, any specific lesion. 

Serum, 2 ml. External 

parasites 

(alcohol) 

Tracheal and 

nasal swab

Vesicular Vesicular fluid (all that is obtainable), vesicular lesion 

epithelium, flaps of epithelial tissue, esophagealpharyngeal fluid (10 ml before dilution with tris-buffered 

tryptose broth, pH 7.4-7.6 with phenol red). In addition, if 

dead--prescapular LN, adrenal, kidney, thyroid, heart, 

tonsil, mandibular LN.

Serum, 10 ml.

*Amies transport medium with charcoal required; specimens must reach the NVSL within 48 hours after collection.

Last Modified: March 28, 2013
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/07 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6723

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DERRICK EDWARD BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00534-CMH-1)

Submitted: April 27, 2009 Decided: May 12, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Edward Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Kelli Hamby Ferry, Jeanine Linehan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derrick Edward Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for
reduction of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. See United States v. Dunphy , 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Hood , 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons set forth by the
district court. United States v. Brown , No. 1:03-cr-00534-CMH-1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 11, 2008). 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
Licensed Designated Qualified Persons (DQP) List

 01.03.24

Last Name First Name HIO

Chaffin Harry AHS

Livingston Paul AHS

King Dewayne AHS

Pittman Curtis AHS

Pittman Paige AHS

Todd Jason AHS

Woody Steven AHS

Coleman Bill DQP Services

Gibson Victor DQP Services

Harris Lisa FOSH

Rutherford Scottie FOSH

Hardin Anne HAWHA

Huffman Brad HAWHA

Nichols Ted HAWHA

Matson Mark IWHA

Moore Donna IWHA

Artrip Jeff KY-HIO

Carter Brent KY-HIO

Deweese Sharon KY-HIO

Hurt Jacob KY-HIO

Owen Gabe KY-HIO

Toler Tim KY-HIO

Varney Matt KY-HIO

Cook Stephen MFTHBA

Dennis Randall MFTHBA

DeVore Gary MFTHBA

Johnson Sarah MFTHBA

Kitterman Daniel MFTHBA

O'Dell Scott MFTHBA

Eidson Joe NWHA

Janish Matt NWHA

Kowalski Will NWHA

Messersmith Amy NWHA

Stevens Cassidie NWHA

Page 1 of 2
Licensed Designated Qualified Persons (DQP) List

 01.03.24

Last Name First Name HIO

Wray Jim NWHA

Boles Benton SHOW

Bratton Kerry SHOW

Brewington Robert "Lynn" SHOW

Coleman Brad SHOW

Compton Jason SHOW

Dial Callaway SHOW

Drinkard Randy SHOW

Gladney Iry SHOW

Hatfield Lance SHOW

Hatfield Tim SHOW

Helton Scott SHOW

Hopkins William "Benji" SHOW

McClurkan Kevin SHOW

Mullins James (Jim) SHOW

Rainey Eddie SHOW

Riner John Paul SHOW

Bachert Brady WHOA

Flowers Emily WHOA

Gibbs, Jr. Robert Leon WHOA

Heuer Jeff WHOA

Kerkendall Justin WHOA

Kiepe Isaac WHOA

Martin Terry WHOA

McArthur William WHOA

Ostrum Alex WHOA

Ostrum Sara WHOA

Starnes Dan WHOA

Starnes Larry WHOA

Page 2 of 2