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

Frequency

Spill Prevention Equipment (Spill 

Buckets) Monthly

Monitoring / Observation Well 

Manhole Covers Monthly

Impressed Current Cathodic 

Protection Systems

Monthly

Release Detection Systems Monthly

No Sump Present Inspect Once Every Three Months

Sump With No Monitoring Inspect Once Per Year

Sump With Continuous Monitoring No Inspection, Only Investigate Alarms

No Under Dispenser Containment or 

Under Dispenser Containment with 

No Monitoring

Inspect Monthly

Under Dispenser Containment With 

Monitoring or Under Dispenser 

Containment with .2gph Line Leak 

Detection

No Inspection, Only Investigate Alarms

Frequency

All New USTs EPA-3yr At Time of Installation

Existing USTs with Interstitial 

Monitoring EPA-3yr No Testing Required

Existing USTs with No Monitoring EPA-3yr

Test Once Every 5 Years After Manufacturer 

Warrantee Period

All New Piping (secondary Contained) EPA-3yr At Time of Installation

All New Containment Sumps EPA-3yr At Time of Installation

Existing Containment Sumps with No 

Monitoring EPA-3yr

One Passing Test Within 5 Years From Date 

Regulation Take Effect - Test Entire Sump - 

No Further Testing

Existing Containment Sumps with 

Monitoring EPA-3yr

One Passing Test Within 5 Years From Date 

Regulation Take Effect - Test to the Height 

the Sensor Will be Activated - No Further 

Testing

Existing Double-Wall Containment 

Sumps with Interstitial Space 

Monitored EPA-3yr No Testing Required

Interstitial Space for USTs

Containment Sumps

Piping Interstitial Space

PMAA Alternative Monthly Walkthrough Inspections

Sump Inspection Inspection Schedule

Dispenser Cabinets

Inspections for All Facilities

PMAA Alternative Periodic Testing of Secondary Containment
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4655 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the importation or transportation of child sex dolls, and for 

other purposes. 

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

•HR 4655 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Curbing Realistic Ex3 ploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots Act of 2017’’ or 

4 as the ‘‘CREEPER Act of 2017’’. 

5 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

6 The Congress finds as follows: 

7 (1) There is a correlation between possession of 

8 the obscene dolls, and robots, and possession of and 

9 participation in child pornography. 

10 (2) The physical features, and potentially the 

11 ‘‘personalities’’ of the robots are customizable or 

12 morphable and can resemble actual children. 

13 (3) Some owners and makers of the robots have 

14 made their children interact with the robots as if the 

15 robots are members of the family. 

16 (4) The robots can have settings that simulate 

17 rape. 

18 (5) The dolls and robots not only lead to rape, 

19 but they make rape easier by teaching the rapist 

20 about how to overcome resistance and subdue the 

21 victim. 

22 (6) For users and children exposed to their use, 

23 the dolls and robots normalize submissiveness and 

24 normalize sex between adults and minors. 
3 

•HR 4655 EH

1 (7) As the Supreme Court has recognized, ob2 scene material is often used as part of a method of 

3 seducing child victims. 

4 (8) The dolls and robots are intrinsically related 

5 to abuse of minors, and they cause the exploitation, 

6 objectification, abuse, and rape of minors. 

7 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION OR TRANSPOR8 TATION OF CHILD SEX DOLLS. 

9 Section 1462 of title 18, United States Code, is 

10 amended— 

11 (1) in paragraph (a), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

12 end; 

13 (2) in paragraph (b), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

14 end; 

15 (3) by inserting after paragraph (c) the fol16 lowing: 

17 ‘‘(d) any child sex doll; or’’; and 

18 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘In this section, the term ‘child sex doll’ means an ana20 tomically-correct doll, mannequin, or robot, with the fea-
4 

•HR 4655 EH

1 tures of, or with features that resemble those of, a minor, 

2 intended for use in sexual acts.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 13, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4655 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 

dolls, and for other purposes. the importation or transportation of child sex
#### GIRDLER CORPORATION and CherryBurrell Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ABBOTTS DAIRIES, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6936.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1939.

Clair W. Fairbank, Oscar W. Jeffery, and S. A. Demma, all of New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Geo. W. Hansen and M. Hudson Rathburn, both of Chicago, Ill., (Ames, Thiess, Olson & Mecklenburger, of Chicago, Ill., and Busser & Harding, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before CLARK, BIDDLE, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We have considered the record carefully, and finding no error, the decree is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Kirkpatrick, reported in 24 F.Supp. 551.
#### Linda Kaplan, as Executrix of Joel Kaplan, Deceased, Respondent, v Diego Herbstein et al., Defendants, and Gregory Carsen et al., Appellants.

— In an action .to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants Gregory Carsen, Gregory Carsen, M.D., P.C., Barry Held, Robert Meisell, Alex Tallis, Lawrence Schechter and William Wolff appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), entered September 28, 1989, as denied their motion for a protective order as to demand No. 1 of the plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that the supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court *(see, Matter of U. S. Pioneer Elec. Corp. [Nikko Elec. Corp.],*47 NY2d 914, 916; *Boylin v Eagle Telephonies,*130 AD2d 538) and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed *(see, Cable v IBM Corp.,*101 AD2d 799; *see also, PCB Piezotronics v Change,*163 AD2d 829). We find that no improvident exercise of discretion has been demonstrated in the instant matter. The fee schedule information contained in the contract sought by the plaintiff may be material and *201relevant to determining the degree of control exercised by the defendant Booth Memorial Medical Center over the radiology group headed by the appellant Barry Held. The group also apparently included the appellants Robert Meisell, Alex Tallis, Lawrence Schechter, and William Wolff. This information may, therefore, bear upon the issue of Booth Memorial Medical Center’s vicarious liability for the negligence of an individual member of the radiology group *(see, Kavanaugh v Nussbaum,*71 NY2d 535, 547; *Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp.,*67 NY2d 72, 79; *Mertsaris v 73rd Corp.,*105 AD2d 67, 80; *Mduba v Benedictine Hosp.,*52 AD2d 450). Accordingly, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
County Economic Status in Appalachia, Fiscal Year 2018

(Effective October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018)

The Appalachian Regional Commission uses an index-based county 

economic classification system to identify and monitor the economic 

status of Appalachian counties. See the reverse side for a description of 

each economic level.

Map Created: August 2017

Data Sources:

Unemployment data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS, 2013–2015

Income data: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2015

Poverty data: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2011–2015

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

Distressed (84)

At-Risk (115)

Transitional (208)

Competitive (11)

County Economic Levels

Attainment (2)
County Economic Status Classification System, FY 2018

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) uses an index-based county economic classification system to 

identify and monitor the economic status of Appalachian counties. The system involves the creation of a 

national index of county economic status through a comparison of each county’s averages for three economic 

indicators—three-year average unemployment rate, per capita market income, and poverty rate—with national 

averages. The resulting values are summed and averaged to create a composite index value for each county. 

Each county in the nation is then ranked, based on its composite index value, with higher values indicating 

higher levels of distress.

County Economic Levels

Each Appalachian county is classified into one of five economic status designations, based on its position in the 

national ranking. 

Distressed

Distressed counties are the most economically depressed counties. They rank in the worst 10 percent of the 

nation’s counties.

At-Risk

At-Risk counties are those at risk of becoming economically distressed. They rank between the worst 10 percent 

and 25 percent of the nation’s counties.

Transitional

Transitional counties are those transitioning between strong and weak economies. They make up the largest 

economic status designation. Transitional counties rank between the worst 25 percent and the best 25 percent of 

the nation’s counties.

Competitive

Competitive counties are those that are able to compete in the national economy but are not in the highest 10 

percent of the nation’s counties. Counties ranking between the best 10 percent and 25 percent of the nation’s 

counties are classified competitive.

Attainment

Attainment counties are the economically strongest counties. Counties ranking in the best 10 percent of the 

nation’s counties are classified attainment.

Attainment 

Counties

Best 10% of 

U.S. Counties

Competitive 

Counties

Best 10+ to 25% of 

U.S. Counties

At-Risk 

Counties

Worst 10+ to 25% 

of U.S. Counties

Distressed 

Counties

Worst 10%

 of U.S. 

Counties

ARC County Economic Status Designation by National Index Value Rank

Ranked Index Values 

of U.S. Counties

Transitional Counties

Higher Index Values Lower Index Values
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    SARA ELIZABETH LOW 9/11 TRIBUTE

  (Mr. CRAWFORD asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001, is a day that will 
forever be etched in our Nation's memory. Today marks the 11th 
anniversary of the tragic terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, 
Pentagon, and the crash of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 
innocent people lost their lives that day.
  For one family in my district, the tragedy of September 11 hits close 
to home. Batesville native Sara Elizabeth Low was a flight attendant on 
American Airlines Flight 11, the plane that hit the north tower of the 
World Trade Center 11 years ago today. Sara was just 29 years old, and 
she loved her job as a flight attendant.
  The community of Batesville, Arkansas, may be small in population, 
but today they are enormous in heart and in remembrance of the life 
Sara Low lived. For 6 years now, the Batesville community has held a 5K 
run to remember Sara, and a memorial now stands in her honor at the 
junior high school.
  Today, my thoughts and prayers are with Sara's parents, Mike and 
Bobbie Low, and all those in Batesville who were blessed to know her. 
May God bless the memory of Sara Low and all those who lost their lives 
on September 11, 2001.

                          ____________________
```
- 1

- Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

s ascha.vanderbellen@ delta .com

Ju ly 1 1 , 201 4

via email and regulations.gov

Brett Kruger

Acting Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Joint Application s of Delta Air Lines, Inc.

, VRG Linhas Aereas S.A.

, ExpressJet

Airlines, Inc.

, and Endeavor Air, Inc.

For Blanket Codesharing

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0095

Dear Mr. Kruger :

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all of the carrier s on the service list s to the above

referenced application s and t here are no objec tions. In these circumstances, we urge that the

application s be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Brian Hedberg, DOT

Bob Finamore , DOT

info@airlineinfo.com
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4827 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4827

To provide for the compensation of Federal employees furloughed during 
                         a Government shutdown.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2018

 Mr. Beyer (for himself, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Serrano, Mr. 
  DeSaulnier, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Norton, Mrs. 
 Comstock, Mr. Kilmer, Ms. Barragan, Mr. Perlmutter, Ms. Shea-Porter, 
Mr. Connolly, Mr. Cicilline, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Mr. Cummings, 
   Mr. Scott of Virginia, Ms. Meng, Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. Pingree, Mr. 
Takano, Mr. Brown of Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Delaney, Mr. 
    Lynch, Mr. Vargas, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Price of North 
   Carolina, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Payne, Mr. Veasey, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. 
 Kuster of New Hampshire, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Ben 
    Ray Lujan of New Mexico, Mr. Cole, and Ms. Clarke of New York) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the compensation of Federal employees furloughed during 
                         a Government shutdown.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employee Retroactive Pay 
Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FURLOUGHED DURING A 
              GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.

    Federal employees furloughed as a result of any lapse in 
appropriations that begins on or about January 19, 2018, shall be 
compensated at their standard rate of compensation, for the period of 
such lapse in appropriations, as soon as practicable after such lapse 
in appropriations ends.
                                 <all>
```
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4888 

To provide that the production safety systems rule and the well control 

rule in section 250 of title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, shall have 

the same force and effect of law as if such rules had been enacted 

by an Act of Congress, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2018 

Ms. BARRAGA ́N (for herself, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. CRIST, Mr. 

SOTO, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. LEE, Mr. 

HUFFMAN, Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mr. SUOZZI, Mrs. 

NAPOLITANO, Ms. NORTON, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. 

HASTINGS, Ms. BASS, Mr. GALLEGO, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mr. DEFAZIO, 

Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. KEATING, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. WELCH, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. GOMEZ, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Ms. JAYAPAL, Mr. MCEACHIN, Mr. RASKIN, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, 

and Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide that the production safety systems rule and the 

well control rule in section 250 of title 30, Code of 

Federal Regulations, shall have the same force and effect 

of law as if such rules had been enacted by an Act 

of Congress, and for other purposes. 

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


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4888 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe Coasts, Oceans, 

3 And Seaside Towns Act’’ or the ‘‘Safe COAST Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FORCE AND EFFECT OF PRODUCTION SAFETY SYS5 TEMS RULE AND THE WELL CONTROL RULE. 

6 Subparts D, E, F, G, H, and Q of section 250 of 

7 title 30, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on Jan8 uary 1, 2018), shall have the same force and effect of law 

9 as if such subparts had been enacted by an Act of Con10 gress. 

11 SEC. 3. STUDY ON BSEE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS OPER12 ATIONS INSPECTION PROGRAM. 

13 The Secretary of the Interior shall contract with the 

14 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi15 cine to complete, not later than 21 months after the date 

16 of the enactment of this Act, the study entitled ‘‘Review 

17 and Update of Bureau of Safety and Environmental En18 forcement Offshore Oil and Gas Operations Inspection 

19 Program’’ that the Secretary of the Interior had pre20 viously contracted with the National Academies of 

21 Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to complete. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
# Plan - Appalachian Regional Commission

- West Virginia Appalachian Development Plan The post West Virginia Appalachian Development Plan appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Virginia Appalachian Development Plan The post Virginia Appalachian Development Plan appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Tennessee Appalachian Development Plan The post Tennessee Appalachian Development Plan appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- South Carolina Appalachian Development Plan The post South Carolina Appalachian Development Plan appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Pennsylvania Appalachian Development Plan The post Pennsylvania Appalachian Development Plan appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Ohio Appalachian Development Plan The post Ohio Appalachian Development Plan appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- North Carolina Appalachian Development Plan The post North Carolina Appalachian Development Plan appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- New York Appalachian Development Plan The post New York Appalachian Development Plan appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Mississippi Appalachian Development Plan The post Mississippi Appalachian Development Plan appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Maryland Appalachian Development Plan The post Maryland Appalachian Development Plan appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
#### Joe ALLEN et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Arthur O. ALLISON, as Executor of the Estate of Lula May Roberson, Deceased, Defendants in Error.

No. 36065.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 1, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1955.

L. K. Pounders, Bristow, Brown, Dar-rough & Darrough, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Finch & Finch, Sapulpa, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

This action to quiet title to 80 acres of land was commenced by John Caruthers against numerous defendants. Joe Allen, styled intervener, to whom Caruthers had *411conveyed the land, proceeded alo'ng with Carathers.

By various eliminations of parties defendant, the cause came to the situation of involving the claim of Joe Allen on the one hand, and on the other hand the claim of but one defendant, Lula May Roberson. She claimed to own the oil, gas and mineral rights in and under the land, basing her ownership on a mineral conveyance of record before Joe Allen purchased the land, while Joe Allen claimed to own both land and minerals in fee.

The trial court upon evidence presented by all parties found and held in favor of the said defendant Roberson on her stated claim, there being various contentions for and against the effectiveness of the mineral deed to Roberson which we deem it not necessary to set out and discuss in full.

John Carathers and Lula May Roberson both testified in the case by comprehensive depositions, but both have died and they are now represented by the administrator of his estate, and by the executor of her estate. Joe Allen and other witnesses also testified.

The contentions of the parties have been presented here by substantial briefs, and we have heard the parties in oral argument and have examined the complete record. The findings and conclusion of the trial court do not appear to ' be against the weight of the evidence. We find no reversible error in the record. The assignments of error on which Allen seeks reversal, with rendition of judgment in his favor against Roberson, are not convincing.

The court does not deem it necessary to make any further detailed statement of the questions of law and facts involved, and deems the foregoing to be sufficient for an opinion disposing of this appeal. See Gulf, C. & S. Ry. Co. v. Kellum, Okl., 261 P.2d 610; S.L.1953 Chap. 15, § 1, 12 O.S.Anno. § 976, and In re Initiative Petition No. 253, Okl., 268 P.2d 844.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WELCH, CORN, BLACKBIRD and HUNT, JJ., concur.

WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and DAVISON, HALLEY and JACKSON, JJ., dissent.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7114

WARREN MATTHEW GIDDINGS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE; MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

MARYLAND; FOX NEWS STAFF; ROCKVILLE MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:21-cv-01360-SAG)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Matthew Giddings, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7114 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Warren Matthew Giddings seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 

without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with the court’s 

prior order directing him to amend his complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only 

over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

545-46 (1949). “[D]ismissals without prejudice generally are not appealable unless the 

grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint could cure the 

defects in the plaintiff’s case.” Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 610 (4th Cir. 2020) 

(internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021). Because the 

district court dismissed Giddings’ complaint without prejudice and Giddings could 

possibly cure the pleading deficiencies identified by the court by filing an amended 

complaint, the court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district 

court with instructions to allow Giddings to amend the complaint.

*

 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.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED 

* In his informal brief and notice of appeal, Giddings claims that he never received 

the district court’s order directing him to amend his complaint. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7114 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 2