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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6265-S6266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        RECOGNIZING RICK BARTOW

 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today a part of the Pacific 
Northwest is coming to Washington, DC. Thanks to the immensely creative 
and dedicated work of artist Rick Bartow and his team, two wooden pole 
sculptures will be placed in the garden of the Smithsonian National 
Museum of the American Indian. Atop one pole sits a bear and the other 
pole a raven, representing the healer and the rascal, respectively. The 
Bear pole is 27 feet tall, and the Raven pole, 23 feet tall. The 
poles--collectively titled ``We Were Always Here''--will face the 
Washington Monument and overlook the National Mall.
  The artist behind this project, Rick Bartow, is a Native American of 
Wiyot and Yurok heritage who was born in Newport, OR. His previous work 
has been shown throughout the world, including his Cedar Mill Pole, 
which was displayed at the White House in 1997. When you hear Mr. 
Bartow discuss his art, his process, and the world around him, you 
realize that you are listening to one of the country's foremost 
artistic minds.
  That talent is clearly showcased in ``We Were Always Here.'' The 
level of detail, history, and meaning in each pole is truly amazing. 
The poles are based on Native beliefs, but the message and meaning 
behind them are universal. For example, Mr. Bartow explains that the 
repeated horizontal patterns on each pole, ``symbolize successive 
waves, generations following generations, an accumulation of wisdom and 
knowledge.'' This idea that we can learn from our ancestors and from 
history is critical to the progress of our Nation and is one that is 
beautifully captured through these sculpture poles.
  Thanks to the tireless efforts of Mr. Bartow and his team, folks 
visiting the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian or 
walking the National Mall will now be able to look

[[Page S6266]]

upon these sculptures and gain an understanding of the important role 
the Native American community has in Oregon and throughout our country.
  It is important to note that it is not only Oregon that is 
represented in these poles, but rather the Pacific Northwest. The two 
trees from which they are carved--a 1200 and 500 year old cedar--are 
from our northern neighbors, Washington State, and artists from around 
the area contributed in the creation of these sculptures. This sense of 
community is a staple of the Pacific Northwest and one that is 
represented in ``We Were Always Here''.
  I want to commend Mr. Bartow and his team for their great work, and I 
encourage everyone to get out and experience ``We Were Always Here'' by 
visiting the American Indian Museum or The National Mall.

                          ____________________
```
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4785 

To prohibit the consolidated audit trail from accepting personally identifying 

information, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2018 

Mr. HUIZENGA (for himself and Mr. HULTGREN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the consolidated audit trail from accepting 

personally identifying information, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Customer 

5 Information Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NO ACCEPTANCE OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING IN7 FORMATION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The consolidated audit trail may 

9 not accept personally identifying information. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4785 IH

1 (b) EXCEPTION FOR LARGE TRADERS.—Subsection 

2 (a) shall not apply to information accepted by the consoli3 dated audit trail in connection with large traders. 

4 (c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

5 (1) CONSOLIDATED AUDIT TRAIL.—The term 

6 ‘‘consolidated audit trail’’ means the consolidated 

7 audit trail created by the national market system 

8 plan approved pursuant to section 242.613 and sec9 tion 242.608 of title 17, Code of Federal Regula10 tions (or any successor regulation). 

11 (2) LARGE TRADER.—The term ‘‘large trader’’ 

12 has the meaning given that term under section 

13 13(h)(8) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

14 U.S.C. 78m(h)(8)). 

15 (3) PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMA16 TION.—The term ‘‘personally identifying informa17 tion’’ includes— 

18 (A) Social Security numbers; 

19 (B) individual taxpayer identification num20 bers; 

21 (C) other customer identifying information, 

22 when taken alone or together, sufficient to iden23 tify an individual, such as names, addresses, 

24 dates of birth, account numbers; and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4785 IH

1 (D) any other information the Securities 

2 and Exchange Commission determines could be 

3 defined as personally identifying information. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### PRATT & WHITNEY COMPANY, The White Motor Company, Niles-Bement-Pond Company, Defendants-Appellants, v. The LEES-BRADNER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee. The LEES-BRADNER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant, v. PRATT & WHITNEY COMPANY, The White Motor Company, Niles-Bement-Pond Company, Defendants-Cross-Appellees.

Nos. 8099, 8100.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 9, 1939.

Kwis, Hudson & Kent, of Cleveland, Ohio, for Pratt & Whitney Co. and others.

Hawgood & Van Horn, of Cleveland, Ohio, for Lees-Bradner Co.

Before HICKS and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The parties hereto, having consented to the entry of a consent decree against the defendants herein, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed, as follows:

1. That Letters Patent of the United States granted to William C. Farnum on Gear Cutting Machines No. 1,373,957, being one of the Letters Patent in suit, are good and valid in law.

2. That Letters Patent of the United States granted to the Lees-Bradner Company as assignee of Charles H. Schurr for Gear Grinding Machines No. 1,720,404, being another of the Letters Patent in suit, are good and valid in law.

3. That Letters Patent of the United States granted to the Lees-Bradner Company as assignee of Ernest J. Lees for Finishing Tool No. 2,025,688, being another of the Letters Patent in suit, are good and valid in law.

4. That the plaintiff the Lees-Bradner Company is the sole and exclusive owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to each of said Letters Patent Numbers 1,373,957, 1,720,404 and 2,025,688.

5. That the defendants, the White Motor Company, Pratt & Whitney Company, and Niles-Bement-Pond Company, and each of them, has violated the exclusive *1014rights of the plaintiff thereunder by making, using, and/or selling Gear Grinding Machines embodying and containing the inventions of said Letters Patent to Farnum No. 1,373,957, as set forth in claims 3, 4, 7, 22 and 23 thereof; and embodying and containing the inventions of said Letters Patent to Schurr No. 1,720,404, as set forth in claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 23 thereof; and embodying and .containing the inventions of said Letters Patent to Lees No. 2,025,688, as set forth in claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 thereof, the said devices made and sold by the defendants Pratt & Whitney, and/or Niles-Bement-Pond Company being more particularly shown and exhibited by Plaintiff’s Exhibits 4 and 5, and the said devices used by the defendant the White Motor Company being more particularly shown and exhibited by Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5, pages 1 to 6 inclusive.

6. That no accounting for damages or profits will be ordered in this cause.

7. That each party will bear costs already paid by it, and that any costs remaining to be paid will be divided equally between the parties.

8. That the decree of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, be modified to conform herewith, and that such decree be made final.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          MORNING-HOUR DEBATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 17, 2012, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists 
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
  The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each 
party limited to 1 hour and each Member other than the majority and 
minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes each, but 
in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to 
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Inouye).
  The legislative clerk read the following letter:

                                                      U.S. Senate,

                                        President pro tempore,

                               Washington, DC, September 11, 2012.
     To the Senate:
       Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable 
     Richard Blumenthal, a Senator from the State of Connecticut, 
     to perform the duties of the Chair.
                                                 Daniel K. Inouye,
                                            President pro tempore.

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro 
tempore.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6107-S6108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the 
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

           By Mr. WICKER (for himself and Mr. Inhofe):
       S. 3526. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to 
     protect the rights of conscience of members of the Armed 
     Forces and chaplains of members of the Armed Forces, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
           By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. 
             Feinstein, and Mrs. McCaskill):
       S. 3527. A bill to provide for enhanced criminal penalties 
     for individuals who file a SEVP certification petition under 
     false pretenses, to prohibit certain schools from accessing 
     SEVIS or participating in the SEVP and for other purposes; to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. TESTER:
       S. 3528. A bill to repeal the authorization to provide 
     office space, a furnishings allowance, congressional franking 
     privileges, and staff assistance to former Speakers of the 
     House of Representatives; to the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration.
           By Mr. ROBERTS:
       S. 3529. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify a 
     certain provision relating to prevention of accidental 
     releases; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
           By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Grassley, 
             Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Thune, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Enzi, Mr. 
             Vitter, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Burr, Mr. Coburn, 
             and Mr. Kyl):
       S.J. Res. 50. A joint resolution providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Family 
     Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of 
     the Department of Health and Human Services relating to 
     waiver and expenditure authority under section 1115 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the 
     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program; to the 
     Committee on Finance.

[[Page S6108]]

                          ____________________
```
Page:1 of 3 COST MODEL ANALYSIS TEMPLATE

Light-Duty Technology Cost Study

EP-C-07-069 WA1-3

Printed: 8/13/2012

DRAFT

Material Labor Burden End Item 

Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D Material

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

17 Lighting

1 01 Front Lighting 10.87 1.23 3.31 15.41 0.04 0.77 0.52 0.13 1.46 0 16.87 - - - 7.91

 10.87 1.23 3.31 15.41 0.04 0.77 0.52 0.13 1.46 0 16.87 - - - 7.91

System

System 

ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Sub-Subsystem Description

Subsystem

Investment

(X1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Manufacturing Total 

Manufacturing 

Cost 

(Component/ 

Assembly)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Markup

Net 

Component/ 

Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup 

Cost 

(Component/ 

Assembly)

Total 

Packaging 

Cost 

(Component/ 

Assembly)

Item

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Technology Level: Toyota Venza Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis

Vehicle Class: Small & Mid Size Cross-Over Passenger Vehicle

Study Case#: 07-069-303LW

09000064810d3b0c.xls

EPA Contract:EP-C-07-069 WA1-3 PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL

Author: G. Kolwich

(248)373-6000 Ext. 2411
Page:2 of 3 COST MODEL ANALYSIS TEMPLATE

Light-Duty Technology Cost Study

EP-C-07-069 WA1-3

Printed: 8/13/2012

DRAFT

17 Lighting

1 01 Front Lighting

System

Subsystem

Item

Labor Burden End Item 

Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

 2.26 4.55 14.72 0.04 0.74 0.49 0.12 1.39 0 16.11 - 400.00 - (2.95) 1.03 1.24 (0.69) (0.00) (0.03) (0.02) (0.01) (0.07)

 2.26 4.55 14.72 0.04 0.74 0.49 0.12 1.39 0 16.11 - 400.00 - (2.95) 1.03 1.24 (0.69) (0.00) (0.03) (0.02) (0.01) (0.07)

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAG

Manufacturing 

System 

ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Investment

(X1000)

Manufacturing Total 

Manufacturing 

Cost 

(Component/ 

Assembly)

Markup

Total Markup 

Cost 

(Component/ 

Assembly)

Tooling 

(x1000)

BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Total 

Packaging 

Cost 

(Component/ 

Assembly)

Net 

Component/ 

Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total 

Manufacturing 

Cost 

(Component/ 

Assembly)

Total Markup 

Cost 

(Component/ 

Assembly)

Markup

09000064810d3b0c.xls

EPA Contract:EP-C-07-069 WA1-3 PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL

Author: G. Kolwich

(248)373-6000 Ext. 2411
Page:3 of 3 COST MODEL ANALYSIS TEMPLATE

Light-Duty Technology Cost Study

EP-C-07-069 WA1-3

Printed: 8/13/2012

DRAFT

17 Lighting

1 01 Front Lighting

System

Subsystem

Item

USD USD USD USD USD

0 (0.76) - 400.00 -

0 (0.76) - 400.00 -

T TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Investment 

(X1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

System 

ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Total 

Packaging 

Cost 

(Component/ 

Assembly)

Net 

Component/ 

Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

09000064810d3b0c.xls

EPA Contract:EP-C-07-069 WA1-3 PROPRIETARY and CONFIDENTIAL

Author: G. Kolwich

(248)373-6000 Ext. 2411
306 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76104 

817.332.8505 MAIN/817.332.8548 FAX

LABORCOUNSEL.NET 

March 13, 2015 

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk

Court of Appeals 

Third District of Texas

Post Office Box 12547 

August, Texas 78711

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 03-14-00693-CV

 Trial Court Case Number: C2014-0928A 

Style: City of New Braunfels; Jan Kotylo, in her official capacity; Pat Clifton, in his 

official capacity; and Fritz Welsch, in his official capacity v. Joseph Tovar 

 

Dear Mr. Kyle:

 On behalf of the City of New Braunfels, Jan Kotylo, Pat Clifton and Fritz Welsch, in their 

official capacities, please accept this letter as our firm’s intention to orally argue the above case 

before the Court on April 22, 2015 at 1:30 P.M. Additionally, as requested in your correspondence 

of March 12, 2015, our office is in the process of compiling three copies of each brief filed on 

behalf of our clients. Those copies will be forwarded no later than the deadline of March 23rd and 

will be in compliance with the rules of this Court. 

 As always, should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to 

contact my office.

 

 

 Very truly,

 /s/ Bettye Lynn

 Bettye Lynn

Lynn@laborcounsel.net 

Direct Dial: 817.332.8504 

BL/jc

 

Electronically Serve:

Mr. Chad Hyde, TMPA 

6200 La Calma Drive, Suite 200 

Austin, Texas 78752 

Chad.Hyde@tmpa.org 

ACCEPTED

03-14-00693-CV

4495923

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

3/13/2015 3:03:30 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/13/2015 3:03:30 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

May 14, 2007

U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission100 F Street, N. E.Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The certification set forth below is being submittedto the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complyingwith Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode. This certification is not to be deemed to be filed pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) accompanying this letter and isnot to be incorporated by reference into any filing, whether made before orafter the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in suchfiling.

I, Robert E.Driscoll, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Mirant AmericasGeneration, LLC (the “Company”), certify that, subject to thequalifications noted below, to the best of my knowledge:

1.                the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of Mirant AmericasGeneration, LLC.

| Name:    |     | /s/ ROBERT E.  DRISCOLL       |   |   |
|----------|----------|-----------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|     |     | Robert E. Driscoll                 |   |   |
| * * | * * | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |   |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Mirant Americas Generation, LLCand will be retained by Mirant Americas Generation, LLC and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
# C_2009113EN.01001902.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2008 — Amiraike Berlin GmbH Aero and Campus Cottbus Ltd.

(Case C-497/08)

2009/C 113/38

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Charlottenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Amiraike Berlin GmbH

Applicant:

Other party: Aero Campus Cottbus Ltd

Other party:

Question referred

Question referred

Are the provisions of primary Community law, in particular, Articles 10 EC, 43 EC and 48 EC and the principle according to which Member States as between each other must accord mutual recognition to their respective legal orders to be interpreted as meaning that in ratifying Community law a Member State (‘the first Member State’) has indicated, in principle, its acceptance of the effects on its national territory of expropriatory measures imposed under the legal order of a second Member State, at any rate, where the company (created as a matter of private law) affected by the expropriatory measure previously elected on an intentional basis — exercising its Community right to freedom of establishment — to submit itself to the company law regime of the second Member State, responsible for imposing the expropriation, notwithstanding the fact that it exercises its business activities in the first Member State and holds company assets affected by the expropriatory measure situated in that State?

---
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4854 

AN ACT 

To amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 

2000 to provide additional resources to State and local 

prosecutors, 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 4854 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice Served Act 

3 of 2018’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROSECUTION OF DNA COLD CASES. 

5 (a) DEBBIE SMITH DNA BACKLOG GRANT PRO6 GRAM.—Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimi7 nation Act of 2000 (34 U.S.C. 40701) is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the 

9 following: 

10 ‘‘(9) To increase the capacity of State and local 

11 prosecution offices to address the backlog of violent 

12 crime cases in which suspects have been identified 

13 through DNA evidence.’’; and 

14 (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the 

15 following: 

16 ‘‘(5) ALLOCATION OF GRANT AWARDS FOR

17 PROSECUTORS.—For each fiscal year, not less than 

18 5 percent, but not more than 7 percent, of the grant 

19 amounts distributed under paragraph (1) shall, if 

20 sufficient applications to justify such amounts are 

21 received by the Attorney General, be awarded for 

22 purposes described in subsection (a)(9), provided 

23 that none of the funds required to be distributed 

24 under this paragraph shall decrease or otherwise 

25 limit the availability of funds required to be awarded 
3 

•HR 4854 EH

1 to States or units of local government under para2 graph (3).’’. 

3 (b) PROSECUTION OF COLD CASES.—Of the amounts 

4 made available to the Attorney General for a DNA Anal5 ysis and capacity enhancement program and for other 

6 local, State, and Federal forensic activities for the purpose 

7 described in section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimi8 nation Act of 2000 (34 U.S.C. 40701) under the heading 

9 ‘‘STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE’’ 

10 under the heading ‘‘OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS’’ 

11 under the heading ‘‘DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’’ in 

12 fiscal years 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, not less than 

13 5 percent, but not more than 7 percent, of such amounts 

14 shall be provided for grants for prosecutors to increase 

15 the capacity of State and local prosecution offices to ad16 dress cold cases involving violent crime, where suspects 

17 have been identified through DNA evidence. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4854 

AN ACT 

To amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 

poses. State and local prosecutors, and for other purAct of 2000 to provide additional resources to