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

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 19, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RECOGNIZING MAJOR GENERAL WALTER WOJDAKOWSKI FOR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY 
                       AND THE UNITED STATES ARMY

                                 ______
                                 

                      HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 19, 2008

  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a 
dear friend and one of our brave patriots. For over 30 years, Major 
General Walter Wojdakowski who is currently the commanding general at 
Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, has served our nation with bravery, 
dedication and respect. He has a lifetime of selfless service that 
included command, battlefield and diplomatic experience. Major General 
Walter Wojdakowski ends his brilliant career at Ft. Benning where he 
first trained as second lieutenant to become an Infantry platoon 
leader.
  Schooled in military arts at the United States Military Academy West 
Point, he would travel the globe with his wife Candy and their children 
Steven and Ami. Major General Wojdakowski would serve in leadership and 
staff positions in Germany and Kuwait with distinction as well as duty 
stations in the United States.
  His impact is measured by the knowledge lie gained through his many 
challenging and difficult assignments. He used his experience to train 
this generation of war fighters for the most complex and difficult 
conflict in our nation's history, the Global War on Terrorism. The men 
and women he leads at Ft. Benning can proudly proclaim that they have 
trained the best soldiers in the world.
  Major General Wojdakowski has demonstrated loyalty, faith and 
allegiance to our nation, to our military forces and to the citizens of 
our great country. He understands that meeting one's duty is to fulfill 
your obligations and accept responsibility for one's actions and the 
actions of one's subordinates.
  He earned respect leading by example and showing respect by 
faithfully upholding and practicing the Army values. Major General 
Wojdakowski is recognized for his integrity and strict focus on 
exceeding the Army's highest standards. He has always understood the 
more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in war.
  I am pleased to honor this warrior-patriot on his retirement from the 
United States Army. Major General Wojdakowski exemplifies personal 
courage and honor. He is one of the brave few who chose a life of 
servitude to his nation, and because of his service our nation is safer 
and stronger today. I want to commend Major General Wojdakowski, his 
wife Candy and his entire family for his reaching this important 
milestone. I wish him all the best in the years ahead.

                          ____________________
```
#### Hansen, Appellant, vs. Taylor Beverage & Candy Company, imp., Respondent.

*December 7, 1937*—

March *15, 1938.*

*142For the appellant there were briefs by *Tibbs & Tibbs*of Milwaukee, and Miller, *Kuchenberg & White*of Marinette, and oral argument by *Brooke Tibbs*and *W. L. Tibbs.*

For the respondent there were briefs by *O’Melia & Kaye*of Rhinelander, and oral argument by *A. J. O’Melia.*

The following opinion was filed January 11, 1938:

Fowler, J.

This case in its essential features is the same as that of *E. L. Husting Co. v. Coca Cola Co.*194 Wis. 311, 216 N. W. 833; 205 Wis. 356, 237 N. W. 85, 238 N. W. 626, and is ruled thereby. The Western Company there, as here, was not served with process. The Husting Company had a contract executed by the Western Company in 1917 identical, except as to territory, with the instant Taylor contract, also executed in 1917. The defendant Wisconsin Coca Cola Company in the *Husting Case*had a bottlers’ contract made in 1923 from the Western Company purporting to give the rights in Milwaukee theretofore given exclusively to Husting Company. The defendant Milwaukee Coca Cola *143Company had a subbottlers’ contract from the Wisconsin Coca Cola Company purporting to give rights to use the Coca Cola trade-mark and to sell as a subbottler in Milwaukee county. The Husting Company sought an injunction against the Wisconsin and Milwaukee Coca Cola Companies to restrain them from interfering with its contract rights under its earlier contract. The court held that these companies, in selling in Milwaukee county with knowledge of the Husting Company’s prior contract, were aiding the Western Company in the violation of its contract with the Husting Company, and became malicious wrongdoers, and, as such, were subject to in junctional remedy restraining future interference with the Husting Company’s contract. The basis of the in junctional relief was violation of the negative covenant of the Western Company by which it bound itself “not to convey, assign, or transfer the right of usage of said name [Coca Cola] in said territory to any other party whatsoever.” As soon as the Wisconsin and Milwaukee Companies there, and the plaintiff here, acquired knowledge of the pre-existing contract, they, in continuing to sell over the objection of the holder of the prior contract, intentionally committed a wrongful act, from which a malicious motive is inferred. The malice implied is not “actual malice or ill-will,' but the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal or social justification.” *Husting Case, supra,*205 Wis. 356, 366, 237 N. W. 85, 238 N. W. 626.

The principles involved are so fully discussed in the *Husting Case, supra,*that we see no need for further discussion.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on March 15, 1938.
December 9, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10839 

C. LOGAN WHEELER, OF TENNESSEE 

AMANDA FAITH WHITESELL, OF VIRGINIA 

HEATHER A. WIGGINS, OF VIRGINIA 

DAVID WISNER, OF NEW YORK 

HEATHER NICOLE WRIGHT, OF MARYLAND 

CHRISTIAN S. YUN, OF CALIFORNIA 

THE FOLLOWING-NAMED CAREER MEMBER OF THE 

SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE FOR PROMOTION WITHIN AND INTO THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE TO THE CLASS INDICATED: 

CAREER MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CLASS OF MINISTER COUNSELOR: 

DANIEL E. HARRIS, OF MARYLAND 

IN THE AIR FORCE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUALS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE GRADES INDICATED IN THE REGULAR AIR 

FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 531(A): 

To be lieutenant colonel 

GEORGE B. GOSTING 

To be major 

JOSEPH S. PARK 

IN THE ARMY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF 

THE UNITED STATES OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO 

THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY 

UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203 AND 12211: 

To be colonel 

GARY D. GILMORE 

CHRISTINE GLOVER 

HAROLD B. JONES, JR. 

LEE D. SCHNELL 

IN THE NAVY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT 

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY 

UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: 

To be captain 

MIGUEL GONZALEZ 

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT 

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY 

UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 624: 

To be commander 

DAVID M. DROMSKY 

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR TEMPORARY 

APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE 

UNITED STATES NAVY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 

5721: 

To be lieutenant commander 

CHARLES C. ADKISON 

ROBERT J. BARRETT 

ALICIA L. BELCHER 

SHAN A. BOGART 

KENNETH A. BOURASSA 

MARK C. BURKE 

KEVIN R. CASAGRANDE 

THOMAS J. COOPER 

JANET H. DAYS 

DANIELLE C. DEFANT 

ERIC E. ERHARD 

ANDREW D. FLEISHER 

JENNIFER M. FREE 

RAYMOND J. GAMICCHIA 

CHRISTOPHER D. HEINZ 

JEREMIAH D. JACKSON 

ANTHONY G. JARED 

ALEXANDER B. KORN 

JASON LABOTT 

JIWAN A. MACK 

ROBERT L. NOWLIN 

DOUGLAS V. NYE 

RICHARD A. ROBBINS, JR. 

DAVID H. RYAN 

CHRISTOPHER J. SEVERS 

ERIC W. SISCO 

TRICIA L. TEAS 

f 

CONFIRMATION 

Executive nomination confirmed by 

the Senate, Tuesday, December 9, 2008: 

IN THE AIR FORCE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE 

UNITED STATES OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT AS THE DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD AND FOR APPOINTMENT 

TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR 

FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 601 AND 10506: 

To be lieutenant general 

MAJ. GEN. HARRY M. WYATT III 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90330-90331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26612]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 15, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 8, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
447 to Competitive Product List. Documents

[[Page 90331]]

are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-348, K2025-346.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-26612 Filed 11-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 188 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        House of Representatives

Chamber Action
  The House was not in session today. The House is scheduled to meet at 
11 a.m. on Saturday, January 3, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of H. 
Con. Res. 440.
```
#### Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Respondent, vs. Szewczykowski, Appellant.

*January 1*0

February *7, 1928.*

*Appeal: Gross negligence: Failure of 'court to submit issue as to ordinary negligence: Harmless error.*

Where the court submitted to the jury the issue of gross negligence only, defendant cannot complain because the question of ordinary negligence was not submitted also, in that he was not prejudiced thereby, since he could have been liable on either count, but not on both, and he was clearly guilty of ordinary negligence as a matter of law, if not of gross negligence.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Chester A. Fowler, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action for damage to automobile. This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The judgment was entered upon the verdict of a jury finding the defendant guilty of gross negligence, and assessing the damages. The complaint as amended contains two counts against the defendant, the first charging ordinary negligence, and the second charging gross negligence. The court submitted to the jury the question of gross negligence only.

The appellant assigns as errors: that the court erred in refusing to submit to the jury the issue of ordinary negligence, and the court erred in sustaining the verdict.

*68For the appellant there was a brief by *Rubin, Zabel & Rouiller,*and oral argument by *F. Carney Nelligan,*all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Arthur Wickham,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Wickham.*

CrowNHART, J.

The evidence clearly presented a jury question as to gross negligence, and we deem it unnecessary to discuss that question.

No timely request was made by the defendant for a special verdict or for questions to be submitted to the jury. The defendant’s principal objection on this appeal is that the court did not submit to the jury the question of ordinary negligence. While it would have been entirely proper for the court to have submitted both questions, the defendant cannot complain because he was not prejudiced by the failure to submit the question of ordinary negligence. He would have been liable if the jury had found for the plaintiff on either *count, but he*could *not*be held for both gross and ordinary negligence. *Astin v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co.*143 Wis. 477, 128 N. W. 265.

The defendant was clearly guilty of ordinary negligence as a matter of law, if he was not guilty of gross negligence. Although the court did not give any reason for failure to submit the question of ordinary negligence, we must presume from the facts of the case that the court had in mind, if the jury found defendant free from gross negligence, the court would enter judgment for plaintiff on the ground of ordinary negligence as a matter of law.

In any view of the case the defendant was not prejudiced by the failure of the court to submit the question of ordinary -negligence.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court 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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 15, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 8, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 684 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-350, K2025-348.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-26627 Filed 11-14-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 23A
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  Form S-8 No.
    
    Pertaining to:333-127951
    
    El Paso Corporation Retirement Savings Plan333-126599
    
    El Paso Corporation 2005 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan333-126597
    
    El Paso Corporation 2005 Compensation Plan for Non-employee Directors333-96959
    
    El Paso Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan333-26813
    
    El Paso Energy Corporation Retirement Savings Plan333-26831
    
    El Paso Natural Gas Company Omnibus Plan for Management Employees333-26823 and
333-94717
    
    El Paso Energy Corporation Strategic Stock Plan033-46519
    
    Omnibus Compensation Plan and Stock Option Plan for Non-employee Directors033-49956
    
    El Paso Natural Gas Company Retirement Savings Plan033-51851
    
    El Paso Natural Gas Company Stock Option Plan for Management Employees033-57553
    
    1995 Omnibus Compensation Plan, 1995 Incentive Compensation Plan and 1995
Compensation Plan for Non-employee Directors033-51853
    
    El Paso Natural Gas Company Incentive Compensation Plan333-75781
    
    El Paso Energy Corporation Sonat Savings Plan333-78949
    
    El Paso Energy Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan333-78951
    
    El Paso Energy Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan333-78979
    
    El Paso Corporation 1999 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan and El Paso
Energy Corporation Omnibus Plan for Management Employees333-94719
    
    El Paso Energy Corporation Omnibus Plan for Management Employees333-64240
    
    El Paso Corporation 2001 Stock Option Plan for Non-employee Directors333-31060
    
    El Paso Corporation Coastal Aruba Refining Company N.V. Thrift Plan
(formerly Coastal Aruba Refining Company N. V. Thrift Plan)
## Thomasina Rogers Sworn In as 11th Chairman of the Review Commission

**Thomasina Rogers Sworn In as 11th Chairman of the Review Commission**

Thomasina V. Rogers has been sworn in as the 11th Chairman of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.  She was nominated by President Obama on April 21, 2009, a week before the expiration of her previous term, confirmed by the United States Senate on May 1st and sworn in on May 13th.  Having been confirmed three times to the Review Commission, Rogers has already served the second-longest tenure in the Agency’s 38-year history. She remains the first woman to be designated as Chairman – a distinction she achieved in 1999 under President Clinton.  She is also the only African American to serve on the Review Commission.  Previously, Rogers was confirmed and served as Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States in the mid-1990’s.

Upon being sworn in as Review Commission Chairman, Rogers issued this statement: 
> 
“My goal as Chairman is to ensure the most intelligent use of resources in resolving the occupational safety and health disputes that come before us and to create a work environment that is conducive to high quality work.

I take this opportunity at the commencement of my term as Chairman to re-commit to those management initiatives that I announced in February, while Acting Chairman, including enhanced transparency and staff development, the elimination of unnecessary paper in our internal processes, improvement of our Information Technology infrastructure and better utilization of the IT resources currently on hand.  To those ends, the Review Commission for the first time has begun to post on its website copies of administrative law judge decisions which are under review.  The Commission is also developing a new tracking system that provides a searchable database of internal decisional memoranda within our Office of General Counsel and provides for improved knowledge management within an evolving workforce.

Among my fellow Commissioners, I intend to support collegial decision-making of the highest order -- based on free, open and respectful exchange of viewpoints.

I look forward to a robust decision-making process with fellow Commissioner, Horace “Topper” Thompson, and a third Commissioner to be nominated by President Obama, and to working again with the very talented and able Review Commission staff.

Finally, after 30 years in government service, I am excited to be a part of the change that President Obama is bringing to government and government service.”
#### Estate of Kretchmer: Klinker and wife, Claimants, vs. Fieweger, Administrator. [Cross-appeals.]

*April 4*

June *23, 1930.*

*132For the claimants there was a brief by *Barber, Keefe, Patri & Horwits*of Oshkosh, and oral argument by *Frank B. Keefe.*

For the administrator there was a brief by *Bullard & Spengler*of Menasha, attorneys, and *John, F. Kluwin*of Oshkosh of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Kluwin.*

The following opinion was filed April 29, 1930:

Stevens, J.

The case presents issues of fact. The evidence would sustain a finding that deceased had agreed to •give claimants her entire estate as compensation for the care given her. But there is testimony of equally credible and disinterested witnesses which sustains the finding that no such contract was made. Under that state of the record the findings of the county court must stand and the claim *133be allowed at a sum which will measure the reasonable value of the services rendered.

Deducting the eight months for which claimants testified that they did not expect compensation, there remain fifty-two months for which claimants are entitled to be paid. In allowing the claim at $3,750 the trial court allowed approximately $18 a week, which is so clearly in excess of reasonable compensation for supplying a home to one who contributed so largely to the care of the house that it is clearly against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence, even if the claimants and some other witnesses did express the opinion that the care given the deceased was worth $25 a week.

Considering the services rendered in the home by the deceased and the absence of any long or serious illness which required personal care, the court is satisfied that any sum in excess of $1,750 would be more than reasonable compensation to the claimants, and that in order to close the matter without further expense to either party that the claim should be allowed at $1,750.

This disposition of the case makes unnecessary consideration of the administrator’s appeal from the order denying him the right to offer further proof as to the value of the services rendered by the claimants.

No costs will be taxed by either party, but the fees of the clerk of this court will be paid out of the estate.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, with directions to allow the claim at $1,750.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on June 23, 1930.