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

















## A ppendix

F A R s e c t i o n Sub j e c t Ju s t i f i c a t ion

14 C F R § 45.23 ( b) Req u i r ement t o d i s p l a y

r e g i s tr a t i o n nu m b er o n

v eh i c le In su f f i c i ent s pa c e o n

v eh i c le

14 C F R Part 21 A i r c r a f t c e rt i f i c a t i o n

r equ i r ements a n d

p ro c ed u r es D e s i g ned f o r m an n ed

a i r c r a f t ; not s u i t a b le f o r

o f f

- t he

- s helf s U A S

14 C F R § 61.3 Req u i r ement for p i lot

c e rt i f i c a t e P a r t 61 r equ i r ements

de s i g ned for m an n ed

a i r c r a f t

, not s U AS ;

pe t i t i o n d e sc r i

bes

tr a i n i ng f o r s U A S

o pe r a t o r

14 C F R § 91.7 ( a) A i r w ort h i ne s s

r equ i r ement D e s i g ned f o r m an n ed

a i r c r a f t ; not s u i t a b le f o r

o f f

- t he

- s helf s U A S

14 C F R § 91.9 ( b) ( 2) Req u i r ement for m an u al

t o be ava i la b le i n the

c o c k p i t No o ne a b o a r d t o r ead

ma nu al

14 C F R § 91.103 ( b) Req u i r ement for c r ew

me m bers t o be o n

b o a r d Un m an n ed v ehi c le

14 C F R § 91.109 Req u i r ement for d u al

c o nt ro ls d u r i ng f l i g ht

i n s tr uc t i o n No o ne a b o a r d t o

o pe r a t e co n tro ls

14 C F R § 91.119 M i n i m u m a l t i t u des f o r

s a f e f l i g ht S a f e t y r equ i r es

o pe r a t i o n b el o w t he s e

alt i t u des

14 C F R § 91.121 Al t i meter s e tt i ngs No o ne a b o a r d t o r ead

alt i meter

14 C F R § 91.151 ( a) F u el r equ i r ements Veh ic le d o es n o t us e

f u el14 C F R § 91.203 ( a) & ( b ) Req u i r ement for

r e g i s tr a t i o n a n d

a i r w ort h i n e s s

c e rt i f i c a t es to be

o n b o a r d No o ne a b o a r d t o r ead

c e rt i f i c a t es

14 C F R § 91.205 ( b) C o c k p i t i ns tr u me n t s No o ne a b o a r d t o r ead

r equ i r ement i n s tr u me n t s

14 C F R § 91.215 Tran s ponder

r equ i r ement Veh ic le has i ns u f f i c i e n t

us ef u l load; w i ll b e

o pe r a t ed b el o w ATC

r adar c o v e r a g e

14 C F R § 91.405 ( a) In s pe c t i o n req u i r eme nt s D e s i g ned f o r m an n ed

a i r c r a f t ; not s u i t a b le f o r

o f f

- t he

- s helf s U A S

14 C F R § 91.407 ( a) ( 1) In s pe c t i o n a p p rov al

r equ i r ements D e s i g ned f o r m an n ed

a i r c r a f t ; not s u i t a b le f o r

o f f

- t he

- s helf s U A S

14 C F R § 91.409 ( a) ( 2) A i r w ort h i ne s s

i n s pe c t i o n D e s i g ned f o r ma n ned

a i r c r a f t ; not s u i t a b le f o r

o f f

- t he

- s helf s U A S

14 C F R § 91.417 ( a) & ( b ) M a i ntena nc e r eco r ds

r equ i r ements D e s i g ned f o r m an n ed

a i r c r a f t ; not s u i t a b le f o r

o f f

- t he

- s helf s U A S
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2153 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect employer rights. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 2011 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mr. ROSS of Florida, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, and 

Ms. JENKINS) 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 protect 

employer rights. 

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 ‘‘Truth in Employment 

5 Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) An atmosphere of trust and civility in labor9 management relationships is essential to a produc10 tive workplace and a healthy economy. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2153 IH

1 (2) The tactic of using professional union orga2 nizers and agents to infiltrate a targeted employer’s 

3 workplace, a practice commonly referred to as ‘‘salt4 ing’’ has evolved into an aggressive form of harass5 ment not contemplated when the National Labor Re6 lations Act was enacted and threatens the balance of 

7 rights which is fundamental to our system of collec8 tive bargaining. 

9 (3) Increasingly, union organizers are seeking 

10 employment with nonunion employers not because of 

11 a desire to work for such employers but primarily to 

12 organize the employees of such employers or to in13 flict economic harm specifically designed to put non14 union competitors out of business, or to do both. 

15 (4) While no employer may discriminate against 

16 employees based upon the views of employees con17 cerning collective bargaining, an employer should 

18 have the right to expect job applicants to be pri19 marily interested in utilizing the skills of the appli20 cants to further the goals of the business of the em21 ployer. 

22 (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are— 

23 (1) to preserve the balance of rights between 

24 employers, employees, and labor organizations which 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2153 IH

1 is fundamental to our system of collective bar2 gaining; 

3 (2) to preserve the rights of workers to orga4 nize, or otherwise engage in concerted activities pro5 tected under the National Labor Relations Act; and 

6 (3) to alleviate pressure on employers to hire 

7 individuals who seek or gain employment in order to 

8 disrupt the workplace of the employer or otherwise 

9 inflict economic harm designed to put the employer 

10 out of business. 

11 SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYER RIGHTS. 

12 Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

13 U.S.C. 158(a)) is amended by adding after and below 

14 paragraph (5) the following: 

15 ‘‘Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requir16 ing an employer to employ any person who seeks or has 

17 sought employment with the employer in furtherance of 

18 other employment or agency status.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24729]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group, Population Research Subcommittee.
    Date: October 23-24, 2000.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Chevy Chase Holiday Inn, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy 
Chase, MD 20815.
    Contact Person: Jon M. Ranhand, Health Scientist Administrator, 
Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child, Health 
and Human Development, 6100 Executive Blvd., Rm. 5E01, MSC 7510, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6884.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 19, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-24729 Filed 9-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)      
|View History: Annual                                
|View History: Annual                                
|View History:                                       
|                                                    
|No chart available.                                 
|No chart available.                                 
|                                                    
|                                                    
|Kansas Non-Marketed Production  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | NA     | NA     | NA     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### CARNEILSON v. STATE.

No. 23659.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 14, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Crim. Dist. Atty., and E. ■T. Branch, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., both of Houston, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for an aggravated assault, punishment, 45 days in jail.

The complaint and information appear to be in proper form.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty. No statement of facts is brought forward, and no bills of exception are in the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
July 1, 2015

Mr. Gabriel Rodriguez

531 West 37th Place

Hialeah, FL 33012

Dear Mr. Rodriguez:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 61.113(a) and (b), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and 

(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why 

we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your April 23, 2015, exemption request into the public docket 

(No. FAA−2015−1336), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
3

Project No.: AXX-xx-xxx-E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM-104:TAdams:xx/xx/xx:Doc#xxxx

ARM-1/100/104:Program Office [or specific OPR routing symbol]

[Insert Stylewriter Score Here]

MR GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ

531 W 37TH PL

HIALEAH FL 33012
#### ROACH v. STATE.

No. 27013.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 26, 1954.

*380Martin & Shown, James J. Shown, Houston, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for possessing a bomb; the punishment 13 years in the penitentiary.

The sole question presented is the sufficiency of the indictment, the charging part of which reads as follows:

> “ * * * did then and there unlawfully possess and have in his control a bomb, to-wit: a collection of nitroglycerine capable by its ignition and explosion of causing damage to persons and property * * * ”

The indictment was drawn under Art. 1723 Vernon’s Ann.P.C., Section 1(c) of which defines the term “bomb” as meaning “Any collection of nitroglycerine, dynamite, gunpowder, guncotton or other form of explosive matter including caps, fuses or fuse-heads, capable by their ignition or explosion of causing damage to persons or property.”

Appellant contends that the possession of nitroglycerine is not an offense under Art. 1723 and the foregoing definition unless such substance be a part of a “collection” including caps, fuses or fuse heads as well as nitroglycerine and collectively is capable, by ignition or explosion, of causing damage to persons or property.

Appellant cites as authority Roach v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 261 S.W.2d 847, a former appeal of a conviction against him for possessing a bomb. There we held the indictment insufficient and ordered the prosecution dismissed because of the absence of any allegation specifying the kind, type or nature of the bomb the accused was alleged to have possessed. We pointed out that some of the things defined as constituting a bomb were not explosives. Reliance could not, therefore, be had on the ordinary meaning of the word bomb in charging the offense defined by this statute.

We cannot agree with appellant’s contention here and do not think that the case cited in any way supports his position.

As we understand the definition of a bomb in Section 1(c) of Article 1723 V.A. P.C., a “collection” or amount of nitroglycerine or other explosive which is capable by its ignition and explosion of causing damage to person or property is a bomb, the possession or control of which is punishable under Section 2 of said Article 1723, V.A.P.C., though no caps, fuses or fuse heads are included or possessed or controlled in connection therewith.

The trial court was correct in overruling the motion to quash the indictment upon the grounds that it failed to describe a “bomb” as defined in the statute.

The judgment is affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# Time and Date:

11:00 a.m., Friday, October 27, 2000.

# Place:

1155 21st, NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

Surveillance Matters.

# Contact Person for more Information:

Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,

Sectretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 00-24874 Filed 9-22-00; 4:45 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                            
|View History:                                                                                   
|                                                                                                
|Texas - RRC District 7C Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                
|                                                                                                
|Texas - RRC District 7C Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 768    | 1,407  | 1,001  | 1,314 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 438    | 1,509  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6067** 

DIONE O’MARROW PARKER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. GENE JOHNSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distric t of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cv - 01320

- LO

- JFA )

Submitted : June 16, 2011 Decided: June 20, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per cur iam opinion
. Dione O’Marrow Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dione O’Marrow Parker seeks to ap peal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds , the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and con clude that Parker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Parker’s pending motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED