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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 129 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the arbitration of 

initial contract negotiation disputes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require the 

arbitration of initial contract negotiation disputes, 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 ‘‘Labor Relations First 

5 Contract Negotiations Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INITIAL CONTRACT DISPUTES. 

7 Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

8 U.S.C. 158) is amended by adding at the end the following 

9 new subsection: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 129 IH

1 ‘‘(h)(1) If, not later than 60 days after the certifi2 cation of a new representative of employees for the pur3 pose of collective bargaining, the employer of the employ4 ees and the representative have not reached a collective 

5 bargaining agreement with respect to the terms and condi6 tions of employment, the employer and the representative 

7 shall jointly select a mediator to mediate those issues on 

8 which the employer and the representative cannot agree. 

9 ‘‘(2) If the employer and the representative are un10 able to agree upon a mediator, either party may request 

11 the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to select 

12 a mediator and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation 

13 Service shall upon the request select a person to serve as 

14 mediator. 

15 ‘‘(3) If, not later than 30 days after the date of the 

16 selection of a mediator under paragraph (1) or (2), the 

17 employer and the representative have not reached an 

18 agreement, the employer or the representative may trans19 fer the matters remaining in controversy to the Federal 

20 Mediation and Conciliation Service for binding arbitra21 tion.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
----

|   |   | MERISEL,      INC.                                |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                              |
|   | By:    | /s/      Albert J. Fitzgibbons                    |
|   |   | Name:      Albert J. Fitzgibbons                  |
|   |   | Title:      Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors |
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   | EXECUTIVE                                         |
|   |   |                                              |
|   | By:    | /s/      Donald R. Uzzi                           |
|   |   | Donald      R. Uzzi                               |
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mutteb ~tates ~ourt of §ppeaIs

for tbe jfeberaI QCtrcutt

IN RE GERALD M. BENSON AND KENNETH L.

SMITH

2012-1663

(Serial No. 09/515,978)

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

IN RE GERALD M. BENSON AND KENNETH L.

SMITH

2012-1664

(Serial No. 11/061,327)

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

ORDER

Case: 12-1664 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2012
IN RE GERALD BENSON 2

Upon consideration of correspondence from David J.

Kappos, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding the case caption,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The revised official caption is reflected above.

FOR THE COURT

lsI Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s26

Case: 12-1664 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2012
#### NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Thurston V. STUKES, Appellee.

Motion No. 12517.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Oct. 18, 1961.

*901Gay & Meyers, Austin, for appellant.

Byrd & Davis, Austin, for appellee.

RICHARDS, Justice.

Appellee has filed a Motion to Affirm on Certificate upon the ground that appellant has failed to file a transcript of the record in a proper time in this Court. Since no transcript of the record has been filed in this Court the Motion to Affirm on Certificate is granted and the judgment of the Trial Court is in all things affirmed against the appellant National Surety Corporation and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company as surety on the appeal bond.

Appellee also prays that this Court, pursuant to Rules 435 and 438, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, award an additional 10% penalty to the amount of the judgment already entered upon the ground that the appeal has been taken for delay. Rule 435 provides that when a Court of Civil Appeals affirms the judgment of the lower court it may in its discretion include in the judgment damages not to exceed 10% on the amount of the original judgment as it may deem proper. In the exercise of such discretion this Court is not of the opinion that the award of damages under Rule 435 is warranted.

Even if the award of the 10% amount in dispute as damages is mandatory under Rule 438, this Court is without authority to make such an award since a complete record of the proceedings in the Trial Court has not been filed in this Court in order that by an inspection thereof we may conclude from the whole record that the appeal was taken for delay and that there was no sufficient cause for taking such appeal. Granberry v. Jackson, 62 Tex.Civ.App. 597, 132 S.W. 508; Scott v. McClain, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W. 1118; Ramey v. Phillips, Tex.Civ.App., 253 S.W. 323; Texas State Life Ins. Co. v. Aparicio, Tex.Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 794; 4 Tex.Jur.2d, Sec. 867, p. 445.

Appellee’s motion to award an additional 10% penalty as damages under Rule 435 and Rule 438, T.R.C.P., is denied. All costs of this appeal are taxed against appellant, National Surety Corporation.

Motion granted in part and in part denied.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 10109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02887]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission for Review: Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions 
(SF 85P) and Supplemental Questionnaire for Selected Positions (SF 85P-
S); Correction

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: 30-Day notice and request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This notice corrects a word in the SUMMARY section of an 
information collection notice that was published in the Federal 
Register on January 31, 2024, regarding the renewal of the 
Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions (SF 85P) and Supplemental 
Questionnaire for Selected Positions (SF 85P-S).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexys Stanley at 202-936-2501 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2774524e5362666148554a546748574a09404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6734120e1322262108150a142708170a49000811">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of January 31, 2024 
(89 FR 6139-6140), in FR Doc. 2024-01859, on page 6139 in the first 
column, in the 7th line of the SUMMARY section, the word ``revise'' is 
corrected to read ``reinstate''.

    Dated: February 7, 2024.
Kayyonne Marston,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2024-02887 Filed 2-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-66-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Floyd Lee BULLARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 38595.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 17, 1965.

Jouette M. Bonner, Jacksboro, for appellant.

Patrick A. Myers, County Atty., Jacks-boro, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $250.00.

The statement of facts is in narrative form. Officer Black testified that a 1960 white Ford ran a red light, nearly colliding with his police car, and that he gave pursuit and brought it to a halt. He identified appellant as the driver and stated that he was unsteady on his feet and “had to lean on his automobile to steady himself” and expressed the opinion that appellant was “drunk”.

Highway Patrolman Jackson testified that he, his partner, Burt, and Dr. Turner were in his patrol car when they came upon Officer Black who had stopped a 1960 white Ford, that he observed that appellant was unsteady on his feet, that his speech was not clear, that his eyes were glassy and that he had the odor of alcohol about his person.

Patrolman Burt corroborated his partner’s testimony and expressed the opinion that appellant was intoxicated.

The witness Turner testified that he followed a white 1960 or 1961 Ford for approximately five miles until he saw it where the officers had testified that appellant had been apprehended and that during this distance the white Ford had crossed the center stripe of the highway a dozen times and at times oncoming vehicles had to leave the highway in order to avoid being hit by the Ford.

Dr. Turner testified that he observed appellant on the occasion in question and “as he viewed him, he was drunk at the time.” He further testified that carbon monoxide would affect a person “in somewhat the way intoxicants would. * * * ”

Appellant’s wife testified that their automobile exuded excessive fumes.

Garageman Tilghman testified that appellant brought his Ford in for repair a few days after the day in question and that he found a “broken gasket in the front which * * * allowed excessive carbon monoxide fumes to enter the cab of the car.”

The jury chose to accept the testimony of the witnesses that appellant was intoxicated, and we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

*828We have examined appellant’s contention that the complaint is defective and find no merit therein.

Objections to the charge may not be raised for the first time in a *motion*for new trial. Watson v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 156, 282 S.W.2d 715.

Finding no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
From: "Ueno Christine, R3L MTU Detroit Diesel Inc." <Christine.Ueno@mtu
-online.com>

To: <kopinski.donald@epa.gov> Date: 09/16/2010 05:31 PM Subject: 1033.625(a)(1)


### First, Don, are you still the contact person for locomotive regulations? If not, can you please pass this to the correct person. While this issue is not yet a cert issue for us, it may become an issue for our locomotive chassis partner so we are trying to resolve it before it does become an issue. It looks like 40 CFR Part 1033.150(e) allows engine manufactures to build nonroad engines built to 89 to 1039 , while 1033.625(a)(2) allows locomotive manufactures to build locomotives with engines to standards that are numerically lower than the 1033. However, the nonroad CO limit in part 1039 is not numerically lower than the CO limit in Part 1033. Therefore, it would be impossible to use this provision as there is no standard that is numerically lower than th e Part 1033 CO limit. This may not be an issue for engine suppliers that certify to the provisions of 1033.150(e), since the locomotives are exempt from Part 92 and 1033. But, this becomes a real issue for loco builders who want certify nonroad engines to loco standards in their loco certification. According to the NPRM preamble, this is the long term solution but it may never be a viable solution. 40 CFR Part 1039 CO standard 3.5 g/kW

- hr 40 CFR Part 1033 CO standard 2.4 g/bhp

- hr (switch) or 3.2 g/kW

- hr Was this intentional? I do not believe that EPA meant to constrict loco certifiers this way. This may have simply been an oversight. What do you think?
If you have any questions, please let me know.

---------------------------------------------------- --------------- Christine Ueno Manager, Regulatory Compliance MTU Detroit Diesel, Inc. 13400 Outer Drive, West Detroit, MI 48239 Office: +1(313)592 5427 Mobile: +1(313)401 3681 Fax: +1(313)592 7616 Email: Christine.Ueno@mtu

- online.com Web: www.mtu
- online.com a Tognum Group Company
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 9148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02830]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK


Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice of Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-
Import Bank of the United States (EXIM).

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, February 22, 2023, from 2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. 
EDT.

PLACE: Virtual meeting--The meeting will be virtually for committee 
members, EXIM's Board of Directors and support staff, and virtually for 
all other participants.

STATUS: Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation and time will be allotted for questions or comments 
submitted online. Members of the public may also file written 
statements before or after the meeting to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#67021f13021509060b27021f0e0a49000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b6e737f6e79656a674b6e736266256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>. Interested 
parties may register below for the meeting: https://events.teams.microsoft.com/event/78ee9dee-6388-44d5-b95f-dce679df6ac5@b953013c-c791-4d32-996f-518390854527.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    Discussion of EXIM policies and programs to provide competitive 
financing to expand United States exports and comments for inclusion in 
EXIM's Report to the U.S. Congress on Global Export Credit Competition.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information, contact 
India Walker, External Enagagement Specialist, at 202-480-0062 or at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99f0f7fdf0f8b7eef8f5f2fcebd9fce1f0f4b7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c757278757d326b7d7077796e5c79647571327b736a">[email protected]</span></a>.

Lin Zhou,
IT Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2024-02830 Filed 2-7-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9872-9873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02868]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Thursday, February 15, 2024.

PLACE: 1255 Union Street NE, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20002.

STATUS: Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of 
the meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Regular Board of Directors meeting.
    The Interim General Counsel of the Corporation has certified that 
in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (4) permit 
closure of the following portion(s) of this meeting:

<bullet> Executive (Closed) Session

Agenda

I. Call to Order
II. Sunshine Act Approval of Executive (Closed) Session
III. Executive Session: Report from CEO
IV. Executive Session: Report from CFO
V. Executive Session: GAO Workplan Update
VI. Executive Session: Report from Interim General Counsel
VII. Executive Session: Report from CIO
VIII. Action Item: Approval of Meeting Minutes--November 29 Audit 
Committee and December 18 Regular Board Meeting
IX. Action Item: Resolution of Recognition of Service for Board Member 
Rodney Hood
X. Action Item: Election of General Counsel
XI. Action Item: Ratification of Audit Committee Action on GAO

[[Page 9873]]

Recommendation #10: Revision to Internal Audit Reports
XII. Action Item: Delegation of Authority for NTI Hotel and Venue 
Contracts
XIII. Discussion Item: Overview of Organizational Culture Efford
XIV. Management Program Background and Updates
    Other Reports
    a. 2024 Board Calendar
    b. 2024 Board Agenda Planner
    c. CFO Report
    i. Financials (through 11/30/23)
    ii. Single Invoice Approvals $100K and over
    iii. Vendor Payments $350K and over
    iv. Exceptions
    d. Programs Dashboard
    e. Housing Stability Counseling Program (HSCP)
    f. Strategic Plan Scorecard--FY23 Q4 (with Q4 production)
    Portions Open to the Public: Everything except the Executive 
(Closed) Session.
    Portions Closed to the Public: Executive (Closed) Session.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jenna Sylvester, Paralegal, (202) 
568-2560; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e288919b8e948791968790a28c95cc8d9085"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4228313b2e342731362730022c356c2d3025">[email protected]</span></a>.

Jenna Sylvester,
Paralegal.
[FR Doc. 2024-02868 Filed 2-8-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31.2I, Diane L. Walker, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of LSB Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation and;  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting and;5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting to the registrant’s auditors and theAudit Committee of registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: August 13, 2007                                                            /s/ Diane L. Walker   Diane L. Walker   Executive Vice President, TreasurerandChief Financial Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 24, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00102

- CV

GONZALES NURSING OPERATIONS, LLC f/d/b/a Texas Nursing & Rehab of Gonzales

, Appellant s

v.

Alta Mae SMITH, Rosie L. Smith, ALton Allen Jr., A.B. Allen David L. Allen, Melvin L. Allen, Individually on behalf of the Estate of Nannie B. Allen, Deceased, Appellee s

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 14718 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Supreme Court of Texas has issued a First Emergency Order Regarding the COVID

19 State of Disaster , which permits ( but does not require except to avoid risk to court staff, parties, attorneys, jurors, and the public ) this court to modify or suspend deadlines while the state

of disaster is in effect. As stated on this court’s website: “Other than working remotely, the Fourth Court of Appea ls remains fully operational.”

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to file the brief until “20 days after the Texas Governor lifts the disaster declaration for the State of Texas.” Appellant’s motion does not identify any other basis for the extension. B ecause the supreme court’s

emergency order does not mandate suspension of appellate deadlines and because this court remains fully operational, the motion is DENIED IN PART to the extent appellant seeks an

extension based on the indeterminate end date of the state of disaster. The motion is GRANTED IN PART to allow appellant a twenty

- day extension of time to file appellant’s brief , or until April 27, 2020.

______________ ___________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of March, 2020

.

___ ________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 595 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 595

To provide for the extension of a hydroelectric project located in the 
                        State of West Virginia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 22 (legislative day, March 16), 1995

  Mr. Byrd (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the extension of a hydroelectric project located in the 
                        State of West Virginia.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
numbered 7307, the Commission shall, upon the request of the licensee 
for the project, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and 
public interest requirements of that section and the Commission's 
procedures under that section, extend the time period during which the 
licensee is required to commence construction of the project so as to 
terminate on September 26, 1999.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall take effect for the 
project described in subsection (a) upon the expiration of the 
extension, issued by the Commission under section 13 of the Federal 
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), of the period required for commencement of 
construction of the project.
    (c) Reinstatement of expired license.--If a license for the project 
described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Commission shall reinstate the license effective as of 
the date of its expiration and extend the time required for 
commencement of construction of the project until September 26, 1999.
                                 <all>
```