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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2921 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2921

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the taxation of 
                              hard cider.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2013

Mr. Blumenauer (for himself and Mr. Collins of New York) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the taxation of 
                              hard cider.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cider Industry Deserves Equal 
Regulation Act'' or the ``CIDER Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF HARD CIDER DEFINITION.

    (a) In General.--Section 5041 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Hard Cider.--For purposes of this section, the term `hard 
cider' means any wine--
            ``(1) the carbonation level of which does not exceed 6.4 
        grams per liter,
            ``(2) which is derived primarily from apples, apple juice 
        concentrate and water, pears, or pear juice concentrate and 
        water,
            ``(3) which contains no fruit product or fruit flavoring 
        other than apple or pear, and
            ``(4) which contains at least one-half of 1 percent and 
        less than 8.5 percent alcohol by volume.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (6) of section 5041(b) of such 
Code is amended by striking ``which is a still wine'' and all that 
follows through ``alcohol by volume''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to wine removed after September 30, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
Memo to: EPA Docket (EPA-EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788)

Subject: Meeting on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking f or “Health and Environmental
Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill T ailings,” 40 CFR Part 192

On February 25, 2015 EPA staff members met with rep resentatives of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in the EPA Headquarters offi ces in Washington, DC, to discuss the proposed rulemaking “Health and Environmental Prote ction Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings”(40 CFR Part 192). The following pers ons participated in the meeting:

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC):

Mr. Geoff Fettus, Senior Attorney

Dr. Lance Larson, Science Fellow

Dr. Matthew McKinzie, Director, Nuclear Program

Ms. Sarah Lyn Vollmer, Program Assistant

EPA:

Anthony Nesky, Center for Radiation Information and Outreach, EPA Radiation Protection
Division

Tom Peake, Director, Center for Waste Management an d Regulations, EPA Radiation Protection
Division

Ingrid Rosencrantz, Center for Waste Management and Regulations, EPA Radiation Protection
Division

Dan Schultheisz, Associate Director, Center for Was te Management and Regulations, EPA
Radiation Protection Division

Susan Stahle, EPA Office of General Council (by tel ephone)

In the meeting, NRDC members stated the organizatio n’s intent to submit comments and data concerning proposed revision of 40 CFR Part 192. NR DC discussed a number of court cases involving in-situ recovery of uranium that they hav e been involved with and believe are a source

of relevant information. The NRDC members also aske d clarifying questions on baseline characterization, excursion indicators, and point-o f-compliance. NRDC expressed support for public hearings in communities where in-situ recove ry of uranium is taking place, and asked if EPA was considering extending the comment period.
#### J. H. ROBINSON TRUCK LINES, Inc. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 657, et al.

No. 12497.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 8, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1952.

Maynard F. Robinson, San Antonio, for appellant.

Oliver & Peace, San Antonio, Dixie & Ryan, Houston, for appellees.

POPE, Justice.

Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this case because the appeal is neither from a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order.

The trial court sustained several special exceptions to the allegations of appellant’s petition for a temporary injunction. Leave to amend was neither sought nor denied, and the order of the court in no way dismissed the suit. Appellant’s prayer for relief has been neither granted nor denied, and the trial court has made no adjudication on either the interlocutory or the final phases of the suit. The case is still pending on the docket of the trial court, and there is no appealable order before us.

Since this ’Court does not have jurisdiction, the appellees’ motion to dismiss is granted. Dixon v. Sanderson, Tex.Sup., 6 S.W. 831; Hicks v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Corporation, Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 982; Wedgworth v. Davenport, Tex.Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 789; Secrest v. Ledbetter, Tex.Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 740.

The appeal is dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2739]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Design, Manufacturing, and Industrial 
Innovation; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Design, Manufacturing, and 
Industrial Innovation (61).
    Date/Time: March 7, 8, 14-17, 20-24, 28, 29, & 31, 2000; 8:30 
a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: Rooms 130, 310, 330, 360, 370, 380, and 580, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Joseph Hennessey, Program Manager, Small 
Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer 
Programs, Room 590, Division of Design, Manufacturing, and 
Industrial Innovation, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 306-1395, extension 
5283.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals submitted to the Small 
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology 
Transfer (STTR) Programs as part of the selection process for 
awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary of confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 USC 552b(c), (4) and (6) 
of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: February 1, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-2739 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

               EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                SCHEDULE II -- VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           ADDITIONS          SUBTRACTIONS
                                                   -----------------------    ------------
                                                   PROVISIONS                                ACCOUNTS
                                      BALANCE AT   FOR LOSSES    ADDITIONS    SUBTRACTIONS  WRITTEN OFF   BALANCE
                                       BEGINNING   ON ACCOUNTS     FROM           FROM        NET OF      AT END
  ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS      OF PERIOD   RECEIVABLE   ACQUISITION    DIVESTITURE  RECOVERIES   OF PERIOD
------------------------------------  ----------   -----------  -----------   ------------  -----------  ---------
<S>                                   <C>          <C>           <C>          <C>           <C>          <C>
Year ended December 31, 1996........     7,196        7,293           --            --        5,186        9,303
Year ended December 31, 1997........     9,303        8,111        8,326            --        6,814       18,926
Year ended December 31, 1998........    18,926       12,698        4,683         2,724        7,684       25,899
Year ended December 31, 1999........    25,899       11,905           --            --       12,855       24,949
</TABLE>



                                       37
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 205 (Monday, October 23, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63225-63226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27108]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AH67


Migratory Bird Hunting; Temporary Approval of Tin Shot as 
Nontoxic for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots During the 2000-2001 Season

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) published 
in the September 25, 2000, Federal Register, a proposal to grant 
temporary approval of tin shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and 
coots during the 2000-01 hunting season. Inadvertently, the deadline 
for public comment was stated as November 24, 2000. This correction 
amends the deadline for public comment to October 24, 2000.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule published September 25, 2000 (65 
FR 57586) must be received no later than October 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You should submit comments on the proposed rule to the 
Chief, Office of Migratory Bird

[[Page 63226]]

Management (MBMO), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, NW., 
ms 634-ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240. You may inspect comments during 
normal business hours in Room 634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. 
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Andrew, Chief, Office of Migratory 
Bird Management, (703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We published in the September 25, 2000, 
Federal Register (65 FR 57586), a proposal under the authority of the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j) to 
grant temporary approval of tin shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl 
and coots during the 2000-01 hunting season. Inadvertently, the 
deadline for public comment was stated as November 24, 2000, which 
provides for a 60-day comment period. The correct deadline for public 
comment is October 24, 2000. In the proposed rule, we stated that the 
comment period for the proposed rule had been shortened to 30 days. 
This timeframe will make it possible for tin shot, if temporarily 
approved, to be available for use by hunters during the 2000-01 hunting 
season, and will increase the number of nontoxic shot options available 
to hunters.

    Dated: October 13, 2000.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 00-27108 Filed 10-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2871 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2013 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to modify the composition of the southern judicial district of Mississippi 

to improve judicial efficiency, 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, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2871 RDS

1 SECTION 1. REALIGNMENT OF SOUTHERN JUDICIAL DIS2 TRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. 

3 Section 104(b) of title 28, United States Code, is 

4 amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘Southern District 

6 ‘‘(b) The southern district comprises four divisions. 

7 ‘‘(1) The Northern Division comprises the coun8 ties of Copiah, Hinds, Holmes, Issaquena, Kemper, 

9 Lauderdale, Leake, Madison, Neshoba, Newton, 

10 Noxubee, Rankin, Scott, Simpson, Sharkey, Smith, 

11 Warren, and Yazoo. 

12 Court for the Northern Division shall be held at Jackson. 

13 ‘‘(2) The Southern Division comprises the coun14 ties of George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, 

15 Pearl River, and Stone. 

16 Court for the Southern Division shall be held at Gulfport. 

17 ‘‘(3) The Eastern Division comprises the coun18 ties of Clarke, Covington, Forrest, Jasper, Jefferson 

19 Davis, Jones, Lamar, Lawrence, Marion, Perry, 

20 Wayne, and Walthall. 

21 Court for the Eastern Division shall be held at Hatties22 burg. 

23 ‘‘(4) The Western Division comprises the coun24 ties of Adams, Amite, Claiborne, Franklin, Jeffer25 son, Lincoln, Pike, and Wilkinson. 

26 Court for the Western Division shall be held at Natchez.’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2871 RDS

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 This Act and the amendment made by this Act shall 

3 take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 12, 

2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7194** 

DWIGHT G. SIMPKINS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 2:13

- cv - 00610

- RBS

- LRL )

Submitted : December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Dwight G. Simpkins, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dwight G. Simpkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 4 (2012) petition, and he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as a motion for a transcript at govern ment
expense . The district court referred this case to a magistrat e judge , pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

- (C) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed as untimely and advised Simpkins that the failure to file timely

s pecific objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. , 416 F.3d 310, 315

- 16 (4th Cir. 2005); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985). Simpkin s has waived appellate review by failing to file specific and relevant objections after receiving proper notice. * Accordingly, we deny Simpkins’

* In addition, Simpkins’ informal brief merely restates his habeas claims and does not address the district court’s dispositive procedura l ruling s . Thus , Simpkins has also forfeited appellate review of the dispositive rulings

. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to the issues raised in the (Continued)3 application for in forma pauperis status and his motion for transcript at government expense, deny a certifica te of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

informal brief); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding tha t failure to raise issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue).
# I

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- BRDC, a Joint Venture Under Contract No. N69450-1 O-C-1262 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61968

Michael T. Ambroso, Esq.

DCK Worldwide, LLC Pittsburgh, PA Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy ChiefTrial Attorney Matthew D. Bordelon, Esq.

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: February 4, 2020 

# -;--- 

# ~//_/'**~** , _.,r 

# TIMOTH**~**

# M~ii: / Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61968, Appeal ofBRDC, a Joint Venture, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------

Each of the following  directors and officers of Merrill Lynch & Co.,  Inc., the
general  partner of Merrill  Lynch  Preferred  Funding  I, L.P.,  Merrill  Lynch
Preferred Funding II, L.P.,  Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.,  Merrill
Lynch Preferred  Funding IV, L.P.,  Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P., and
Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding VI, L.P. (the  "Partnerships"),  appoints Thomas
H.   Patrick,   John  C.   Stomber   and  Mark  B.   Goldfus   individually   as
attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution,  to sign and file
Annual  Reports on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended  December 29,  2000,  and
amendments to the forms, on behalf of each of the Partnerships,  with full power
and authority to perform any appropriate or necessary act in connection with the
filing of the forms.



This Power of Attorney  has been signed  below by the  following  persons in the
capacities indicated on the 28th day of March, 2001.


           SIGNATURE                                  TITLE
           ---------                                  -----



    /s/ DAVID H. KOMANSKY                   Chairman of the Board and Chief
-----------------------------------------   Executive Officer
       (David H. Komansky)




    /s/ THOMAS H. PATRICK                   Executive Vice President and Chief
-----------------------------------------   Financial Officer (Principal
       (Thomas H. Patrick)                  Financial Officer)



    /s/ AHMASS L. FAKAHANY                  Senior Vice President and Controller
-----------------------------------------   (Principal Accounting Officer)
       (Ahmass L. Fakahany)


    /s/ W.H. CLARK                          Director
-----------------------------------------
       (W.H. Clark)


    /s/ JILL K. CONWAY                      Director
-----------------------------------------
       (Jill K. Conway)


    /s/ STEPHEN L. HAMMERMAN                Director
-----------------------------------------
       (Stephen L. Hammerman)


    /s/ GEORGE B. HARVEY                    Director
-----------------------------------------
       (George B. Harvey)


    /s/ WILLIAM R. HOOVER                   Director
-----------------------------------------
       (William R. Hoover)


    /s/ ROBERT P. LUCIANO                   Director
-----------------------------------------
       (Robert P. Luciano)


    /s/ DAVID K. NEWBIGGING                 Director
-----------------------------------------
       (David K. Newbigging)


    /s/ AULANA L. PETERS                    Director
-----------------------------------------
       (Aulana L. Peters)


    /s/ JOHN J. PHELAN, JR.                 Director
-----------------------------------------
       (John J. Phelan, Jr.)


    /s/ JOHN L. STEFFENS                    Director
-----------------------------------------
       (John L. Steffens)
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

EXHIBIT 10.31.2  


 
 

AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO
  THE COCA-COLA COMPANY BENEFITS PLAN
  FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS    
    


        THIS AMENDMENT to The Coca-Cola Company Benefits Plan for Members of the Board of Directors (the "Plan") is adopted by The Coca-Cola
Company Benefits Committee (the "Committee"). 


W I T N E S S E T H:  


        WHEREAS, the Plan was previously amended by instrument dated April 15, 2003 in order to address the use and disclosure of protected health information; and 



        WHEREAS,
Section 6.01 of the Plan provides that the Committee may amend the Plan at any time; and 


        WHEREAS,
the Committee wishes to amend the Plan in order to correct a typographical error and to clarify certain information that is not considered to be protected health information. 


        NOW,
THEREFORE, the Committee hereby amends the Plan as follows, effective as of the dates specified herein: 


        Effective
January 1, 2006, Section 9.04 shall be restated in its entirety to read as follows: 



        "9.04    Establishment and Maintenance of Adequate Separation between the Company and Plan.    In accordance with the
requirements of HIPAA, only the employees/classes of employees identified by the Committee or its delegate, as set forth in a separate written document maintained by the Committee or
its delegate, will be given access to PHI to be used or disclosed. Such designated persons will only have access to and use PHI for purposes of Plan administration functions that the Company performs
for the Plan. Notwithstanding the amendment provisions of this Plan, the Committee or its delegate is hereby granted authority to amend the designated persons document from time to time as necessary
to facilitate payment or health care operations of the Plan. Any such amendment to the designated persons may apply prospectively or retroactively." 




        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Committee has adopted this Amendment Number One on the date shown below, but effective as of the dates indicated above. 



	 	 	The Coca-Cola Company Benefits Committee
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  BARBARA S. GILBREATH      

	

 	
 	

Date:	
 	

December 16, 2005














QuickLinks


AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE COCA-COLA COMPANY BENEFITS PLAN FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Financial Assurance Demonstration for ADM CCS#2 Page H1of 5 

Permit Number: IL-115-6A-0001 

ATTACHMENT H: FINANCIAL ASSURANCE DEMONSTRATION 

Facility name: Archer Daniels Midland, CCS#2 Well 

IL-115-6A-0001 

Facility contact: Mr. Mark Burau, Plant Manager 

4666 Faries Parkway, Decatur, IL 

(217) 424-5750, mark.burau@adm.com

Well location: Decatur, Macon County, IL; 

39o53’08”, -89o53’19” 

ADM is providing financial responsibility pursuant to 40 CFR 146.85. ADM is using a 

corporate guarantee to cover the costs of: corrective action, emergency and remedial response, 

injection well plugging, and post-injection site care and site closure. 

The estimated costs of each of these activities, as provided in “Cost Estimate to Demonstrate 

Financial Responsibility for Class VI UIC Permit” (Patrick Engineering, March 13, 2014) are 

presented in Table 1: 

Table 1. Cost Estimates for Activities to be Covered by Financial Responsibility 

Activity 

Total Cost ($) 

Performing Corrective Action on Wells in AoR 231,800 

Plugging Injection Wells 594,120 

Post-Injection Site Care 6,434,500 

Site Closure 535,300 

Emergency and Remedial Response 30,792,000