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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4805 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4805

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on certain battery operated jar 
                                openers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

Mr. Scott of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on certain battery operated jar 
                                openers.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN BATTERY OPERATED JAR OPENERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Battery operated    Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          automatic jar                                                     12/31/2015
                          openers (provided
                          for in subheading
                          (8509.80.50).....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4828 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4828

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain aluminum alloy profiles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2012

 Mr. Nunnelee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain aluminum alloy profiles.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ALUMINUM ALLOY PROFILES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Aluminum alloy      Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          profiles, in                                                      12/31/2015
                          coils, of alloy
                          6011, measuring
                          0.008 mm in
                          thickness and 50
                          mm in width,
                          suitable for use
                          in the
                          manufacture of
                          window shades
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          7604.29.10)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
|                                                                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                        
|View History:                                                                                               
|                                                                                                            
|Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                            
|Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 25122.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 31, 1951.

None on appeal for, appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*134GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for a violation of the liquor law in Marion County and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which mo question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                    
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History:                                                                     
|                                                                                  
|Texas - RRC District 7C Dry Natural Gas Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                  
|                                                                                  
|Texas - RRC District 7C Dry Natural Gas Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 350    | 425    | 388    | 36     | 271    | 276    | 111    | 1,783  | 136    | 90    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 575    | 260    | 84     | 129    | 636    | 6      | 509    | 72     | 336    | 146   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 46     | 435    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ No. 22-5315 September Term, 2022 1: 19-c v -016 60-CKK Filed O n: April 10 , 20 23 In re : Se aled Case, 

## UN DERSEA L JUD GME NT NO T AVAILA BLE TO P UB LIC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

PMG INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY 

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

SA-20-CV-00148-FB

ORDER

Before the Court in the above-styled cause of action is Plaintiff PMG International, Ltd.’s 

Verified Unopposed Motion to Abate [#9]. By its motion, Plaintiff PMG International, Ltd. 

(“PMG”) informs the Court that it sent a letter to Defendant Travelers Indemnity Company of 

America (“Travelers”) on December 14, 2019 invoking appraisal of the underlying insurance 

claim. PMG asks the Court to abate this suit pending the outcome of the appraisal process. 

Travelers is not opposed to abatement. The Court is of the opinion the motion should be granted. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff PMG International, Ltd.’s Verified 

Unopposed Motion to Abate [#9] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this lawsuit is ABATED until further order of the 

Court. The parties are directed to file quarterly status updates with the Court on the appraisal 

process, with the first report due on June 10, 2020.

SIGNED this 12th day of March, 2020.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
June 16, 2009
Dear Owner/Resident: A Lead Based Paint (LBP) assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Omaha Lead Superfund Site investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of lead based paint is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc.) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels. As requested, enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 4018 IZARD ST along with a LBP Fact Sheet. The EPA is currently developing paint stabilization eligibility criteria and at this time can not identify which homes will ultimately be eligible for EPA-funded paint stabilization. At present, paint stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LPB problems, particularly where children under the age of 7 reside. The EPA stresses the importance of maintaining painted surfaces where any amount of LBP is present. The LBP Fact Sheet provides information pertaining to the EPA’s Exterior LBP Response Program. Once the eligibility criterion is finalized (and if your property qualifies) a representative from EPA or the Omaha Lead Hazard Control Program (LHCP) will contact you to arrange for paint stabilization at your property. Exposure to lead contamination can adversely affect the development and behavior of young children. If you have children less than seven years of age living in your home, we strongly recommend that you contact your doctor or the Douglas County Health Department at (402) 444-7825 and arrange to have their blood tested. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at (402) 731-3045. Sincerely, Steve M Langum

Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. 6601 College Blvd. Overland Park, KS 66211 USA Telephone: 913-458-2900- - - - - - -- - - 

# I111111 11111 11111 11111 11111 1\11 1111 2472 1 Omaha Lead Site North Arrow Owner Name:E PLESKKH

. Site Sketch Address: 4018 IZARD ST LBP Assessment 

## - 

# 4 I 

# 1 Plan View 

## - Indicate number of stories and perimeter dimensions of structure

## - - - - 

### - 

## - - -

- 

## - - 

## -
- 

## - Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment ,EGEND : H 

## - N 

### - P 

## - 01 

### - 12345 Samples Analyzed 

### 2 I I 1 L- -BVID Number

-- Sample Number XRF unit: 

## I bok: 

### 1 

### 7

--- Mater~al P = Pamt Date: i 

### o/30/~6 Time: 

### Y ;06 L - Side of Structure N = North S = South E = East W = West staff: 

### WI ES 

### -A. 

### 14./~O.OSample Number Lead Loading StructurelFeature Substrate Color Deteriorated (Window, siding, porch, etc.) (wood, concrete, etc.) Area



## 9

- 

## 5- P 

# -& - 24721

= l3 

### -- 

### 5- P 

## -%- 24721 

## 5 - 

### 5 - P-a-24721 

## 5-5- -- P 

## -% - 24721 

## -13- P 

## -& - 24721



### -- P 

### - - 24721



### -- P --- 24721



### -- P 

### - - 24721



## -- P 

## --- 24721



### - 

## - - 24721 

## -- P 

### ­



### -- P 

### - - 24721



### -- P 

### --- 24721 

### -- P 

### - - 24721

rv LBP-I
```

[Federal Register: July 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 134)]
[Notices]               
[Page 40827]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jy10-71]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-1005; FRL-8836-6]

 
Petitions Concerning Whether Ammonia or Urea Sold or Distributed 
and Used for Certain Purposes Should Be Regulated as Pesticides; 
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of May 19, 2010, 
concerning petitions concerning whether ammonia or urea sold or 
distributed and used for certain purposes should be regulated as 
pesticides. This document extends the comment period for 45 days, from 
July 19, 2010 to September 2, 2010.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2009-1005, must be received on or before September 2, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES 
in the Federal Register document of May 19, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melba S. Morrow, Antimicrobials 
Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703) 308-2716; e-mail address: morrow.melba 
@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document extends the public comment 
period established in the Federal Register of May 19, 2010 (75 FR 
28014) (FRL-8824-4). In that document, the Agency announced the 
availability of and sought public comment on petitions concerning 
whether ammonia or urea sold or distributed and used for certain 
purposes should be regulated as pesticides. EPA is hereby extending the 
comment period, which was set to end on July 19, 2010, to September 2, 
2010.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the 
detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the May 19, 2010 
Federal Register document. If you have questions, consult the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: July 7, 2010
Joan Harrigan-Farrelly,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 2010-17152 Filed 7-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5288 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5288

           To extend the suspension of duty on 2,4-Xylidine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

Mr. Roe of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To extend the suspension of duty on 2,4-Xylidine.

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

SECTION 1. 2,4-XYLIDINE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.10.43 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 2,4-Xylidine) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs January 10, 2001

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MILA LOVE

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Fayette County

No. 4754 Jon Kerry Blackwood, Judge

No. W1999-01957-CCA-R3-CD - Filed August 17, 2001

The defendant appeals her convictions for first degree felony murder and alleges four errors for our

review: (1) insufficient evidence; (2) failing to take judicial notice of the definition of the word

“gank;” (3) failing to determine the order of the verdicts; and (4) failing to instruct on the lesserincluded offenses of felony murder. After review, we hold that sufficient evidence exists to support

the defendant’s convictions for first degree felony murder and that the trial court did not err in

declining to take judicial notice of the definition of the word “gank.” We further hold that the trial

court did not err in failing to determine the order of the verdicts and there was no implied acquittal

of the felony murder convictions. Finally, we hold, pursuant to the recent Tennessee Supreme Court

opinion of State v. Ely, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tenn. 2001), that the offense of first degree felony murder

does have lesser-included offenses of second degree murder, reckless homicide, criminally negligent

homicide, and facilitation of felony murder. Therefore, because the trial court failed to instruct on

the lesser-included offense of facilitation of felony murder, we reverse the defendant’s convictions

and remand for a new trial. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and

Remanded

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID G. HAYES and

ALAN E. GLENN, JJ., joined.

Bill Anderson, Jr., Memphis, Tennessee (on appeal) and Michael W. Whitaker, Covington,

Tennessee (at trial and on appeal), for the appellant, Mila Love. 

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Patricia C. Kussman, Assistant AttorneyGeneral;

Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
----

Action brought on 29 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-423/05)

(2006/C 48/27)

Language of the case: French

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by A. Caerios and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that, by permitting a very large number of unlawful and unsupervised landfill sites to operate in France, and by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health and harming the environment, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC. The French authorities do not dispute that they have breached these obligations; they do dispute, however, the number of unlawful landfill sites indicated by the Commission and claim that their impact on the environment is slight since the unauthorised landfill sites take only green waste, rubble and bulky waste.

The French authorities did not provide adequate information for it to be possible to assess whether its permit system complies with the requirements of Article 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC: no permit is required for tips covering an area of less than 100 m2 with a height of less than 2m or for the recovery of waste on such tips. The French authorities' interpretation that only landfill sites operated by municipal authorities without a permit are unlawful sites is incorrect since an individual may also operate a landfill site without a permit.

On the basis of the information provided to it, the Commission can only assume that, contrary to the requirements under Article 14 of Directive 99/31/EC, establishments and undertakings carrying out waste disposal operations without being subject to a permit did not, prior to 16 July 2002, prepare or present to the competent authorities, for their approval, a conditioning plan for each unlawful or unsupervised landfill site. Any landfill site that cannot be adapted to the requirements of that directive must be closed down immediately. Operating an unlawful landfill without a conditioning plan and without a permit constitutes an infringement of Article 14 of Directive 99/31/EC.

----

(1)OJ L 194, of 25.07.1975, p. 39.

(2)OJ L 182, of 16.07.1999, p. 1.

(3)OJ L 78, of 26.03.1991, p. 32.

----