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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1133 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2017 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability 

Act of 2014 to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for an operation on a live donor for 

purposes of conducting a transplant procedure for a veteran, 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, 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1133 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Transplant 

3 Coverage Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE FOR OPERATIONS ON 

5 LIVE DONORS FOR PURPOSES OF CON6 DUCTING TRANSPLANT PROCEDURES FOR 

7 VETERANS. 

8 Section 101 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Ac9 countability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–146; 38 U.S.C. 

10 1701 note) is amended by adding after subsection (t) the 

11 following new subsection: 

12 ‘‘(u) TRANSPLANT PROCEDURES WITH LIVE DO13 NORS AND RELATED SERVICES.— 

14 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraphs (2) 

15 and (3), in a case in which a veteran is eligible for 

16 a transplant procedure from the Department, the 

17 Secretary may provide for an operation on a live 

18 donor to carry out such procedure for such veteran, 

19 notwithstanding that the live donor may not be eligi20 ble for health care from the Department. 

21 ‘‘(2) OTHER SERVICES.—Subject to the avail22 ability of appropriations for such purpose, the Sec23 retary shall furnish to a live donor any care or serv24 ices before and after conducting the transplant pro25 cedure under paragraph (1) that may be required in 

26 connection with such procedure. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1133 RFS

1 ‘‘(3) USE OF NON-DEPARTMENT FACILITIES.— 

2 In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary may 

3 provide for the operation described in paragraph (1) 

4 on a live donor and furnish to the live donor the 

5 care and services described in paragraph (2) at a 

6 non-Department facility pursuant to an agreement 

7 entered into by the Secretary under this section. The 

8 live donor shall be deemed to be an individual eligi9 ble for hospital care and medical services at a non10 Department facility pursuant to such an agreement 

11 solely for the purposes of receiving such operation, 

12 care, and services at the non-Department facility.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 7, 

2017. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Board of Trustees of Northwestern College, Appellant, vs. Watertown Building and Loan Association, Respondent.

*February 12*

March *10, 1931.*

*215For the appellant there was a brief by *Ernst von Brie sen,*attorney, and *H. F. Lichtsinn*of counsel, both of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. von Briesen.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Skinner & Thauer*of Watertown, attorneys, and *Orlaf Anderson*of Milwaukee of counsel, and oral argument by *Wallace Thauer.*

Rosenberry, C. J.

The trial court sustained the demurrer to the complaint apparently upon the theory that because the statutes of this state did not authorize a corporation such as the plaintiff to hold shares in the building and loan association, a contract made between the plaintiff and the defendant was illegal; that the parties- were *in pari delicto;*that the law would therefore deny all relief and leave the parties where it found .them. Upon what theory the court could say that a contract which is every day entered into by an innumerable number of persons is so wrong as to bring the parties to it within the rule which applies *216to gambling contracts, we are unable to discover. The difficulty arises in this case because of the alleged incompetency of the plaintiff under the statute as it existed to hold stock in another corporation without complying with the statutes authorizing it to do so. The defect proceeds from the incompetency of the party rather than from the illegality of the contract itself. The plaintiff having paid its money to the defendant, supposing itself to be entitled to become a member of the defendant association, the defendant now refusing to complete the arrangement, we perceive no reason, either in law or morals, why the plaintiff should not be permitted to recover the amount by which its payments have enriched the defendant, together with interest at the legal rate from date of demand. *State v. Milwaukee,*158 Wis. 564, 149 N. W. 579.

We do not determine whether the plaintiff was competent to become a member of the defendant association. It is not seeking to enforce its rights as a member. It seeks to recover that which it has paid into the treasury of the defendant company plus simple interest. This it is entitled to do because, even if it should be held that there was a contract, the defendant has breached it. *American Exp. Co. v. Citizens State Bank,*181 Wis. 172, 194 N. W. 427; *Handelsman v. Chicago Fuel Co.*6 Fed. (2d) 163.

Some of the allegations in the third cause of action are made upon information and belief. It is objected that this brings the pleading within the condemnation of the rule laid down in *Thauer v. Gaebler,*202 Wis. 296, 232 N. W. 561. That case merely held that where allegations of a pleading were not made in direct and positive form, they should be upon information and belief, and allegations made in the form “as plaintiff verily believes” were criticised. Manifestly the pleading in this complaint is not subject to that criticism.

*By the Court.*— The order appealed from is reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM: Amy Kopin

TO: The Docket

DATE: July 21, 2011

On June 9th, 2011 we held a conference call with Cummins to discuss concerns raised by

Cummins regarding heavy-duty onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements and timing. Cummins 

raised concerns during the comment period for the heavy-duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed 

rulemaking that heavy-duty hybrid applications may not be able to meet the 2013 heavy-duty

OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking.

1,2

Specifically, their 

comments include a request for a delay of the application of HD OBD requirements for hybrid 

applications until 2020. Attendees from this meeting are shown in the table below.

Attendee Affiliation 

Cleophas Jackson EPA – Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division 

Anthony Neam EPA – Assessment and Standards Division 

Amy Kopin EPA – Assessment and Standards Division 

Mark Stepper Cummins

 

1 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,” republished December 29, 2010. Available here: 

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

2 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule 

Regulations Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway 

Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds,” published February 24, 2009. Available here: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-74-fr-8310.pdf

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-125518, 333-133357, 333-142844, 333-150730 and 333-159021) of XenoPort, Inc., pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan, the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, the 2005Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan and the 2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of XenoPort, Inc., and the New Hire Option Agreements between each of Vincent J. Angotti and David A. Stamler, M.D. and XenoPort, Inc. and the New Hire StockUnit Award Agreements between each of Vincent J. Angotti and David A. Stamler, M.D. and XenoPort, Inc., of our reports dated February 26, 2010, with respect to the financial statements of XenoPort, Inc. and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of XenoPort, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/    Ernst & Young LLP 

Palo Alto, California 

February 26, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,821
<SECURITIES>                                     9,961
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,449
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,918)
<INVENTORY>                                        102
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,456<F1>
<PP&E>                                           2,795
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,875)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,118<F2>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,004
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,791
<SALES>                                          6,798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,316
<CGS>                                            4,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (15,340)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,591
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,636
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,955
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,955
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
<FN>
<F1> Inclusive of non-current assets totaling $326.
<F2> Inclusive of non-current liabilities totaling $109.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Big Bay Realty Company, Appellant, vs. Rosenberg and others, Respondents.

*March 4*

June *4, 1935.*

*320For the appellant there were briefs by *Corrigan, Backus, Ruppa, Bortin & Backus*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Walter D. Corrigan, Sr.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Joseph A. Pad-way,*attorney, and *Carl B. Rix*and *G. Carl Kuelthau*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Kuel-thau.*

The following opinion was filed April 2, 1935 :

Rosenberry, C. J.

The sole question presented upon this appeal is whether or not the court was in error in denying a deficiency judgment under the circumstances of this case. We are cited to no authority, nor do we find any either in the case of the foreclosure of land contracts or the foreclosure of mortgages upon the basis of which a court of equity, having decreed and adjudged that the plaintiff is entitled to a deficiency judgment, may thereafter confirm the sale and deny a judgment for deficiency.

Defendant sefeks to sustain the order upon the theory that the'proceeding in this case is one analogous to a foreclosure of a mortgage, and that the principles stated in *Suring State*
      *321
      *Bank v. Giese,*210 Wis. 489, 246 N. W. 556, control. That case and the subsequent cases of *Kremer v. Rule,*216 Wis. 331, 257 N. W. 166, and *Weimer v. Uthus,*217 Wis. 56, 258 N. W. 358, make it plain that the power of a court of equity to prevent an unconscionable result is to be exercised with respect to the sale, that if the sale be confirmed the legal consequences prescribed by the statute of the state of Wisconsin follow. There is no power in a court of equity to deny a party his statutory rights. In this case the court confirms the sale, but denies the deficiency judgment arbitrarily because the assessed value of the premises exceeded the amount of the judgment with interest. If the court upon the hearing had refused to confirm the sale and ordered a resale, the question would have been whether or not there was an error, but the court would have been well within the field of equity. Having confirmed the sale, it was the duty of the court to render judgment for the deficiency in accordance with the law in such cases made and provided.

*By the Court.*— That part of the order appealed from .is reversed, and cause remanded with directions to enter judgment for the deficiency.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on June 4, 1935.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. BOOZMAN addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter 
in the Extensions of Remarks.)

                          ____________________
```
ghmp_ex105.htm

EXHIBIT 10.5
  
 CONVERTIBLE NOTE
  
 Lone Star Gold, Inc., (the “Company”) for value received, hereby promises to pay to the order of JanBella Group, LLC (the “Holder”), the principal sum of $110,000.00 on demand at  the office of the Company in such coin or currency of the United States of America as at the  time of payment is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts, and to pay interest  on said principal sum at the rate of 10% per year, at said office, in like coin or currency. Until demand for payment is made, interest will be payable quarterly, with the first interest payment due on October 17, 2019.
  
 At the option of the Holder,  this Note may, at any time and from time-to-time, prior to the full payment of this Note, be converted, in whole or in part, into fully paid and nonassessable shares of the Company’s common stock upon surrender of this Note to the Company at its office, accompanied by written notice of election to convert and (if so required by the Company) instruments of transfer in form satisfactory to the Company, duly executed by the Holder or by his duly authorized attorney. The number of shares which will be issued upon any conversion of this Note will be determined by dividing the principal amount to be converted (plus, at the  option of the Holder, accrued and unpaid interest) by the lower of (i) $0.001 (the “Fixed Conversion Price”) or, (ii) 50% of the lowest bid price during the forty-five (45) consecutive trading day period ending on the trading day immediately prior to the applicable conversion date.
  
 The Fixed Conversion Price will be proportionately adjusted for stock splits or similar capital reorganizations. Any fractional shares resulting from a conversion will be rounded to the nearest whole share.
  
 If the Company, so long as this Note is outstanding, enters into a subsequent financing with a third party on terms that are more favorable to the third party than as provided by this Note, this Note will be amended to include such more favorable terms.
  
 The Holder may assign this Note by providing written notice to the Company.
   
 This Note is secured by all of the Company’s assets.
    
 In the event of default, the Company agrees to pay all costs of collection, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
   
 	 
	 1

	

	 

 
  
 This Note shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of North Carolina and  for all purposes shall be construed in accordance with the laws of North Carolina.
   
 	 	LONE STAR GOLD, INC. 
		  
	  
	  

	 Dated: July 17, 2019
	By:	/s/ William Alessi	
	 	 	 William Alessi, 
 Chief Executive Officer
	 

 
  
 	 
	 2
©2015

– Aerial	360	Imaging

– All	Rights	Reserved 1 N

- Number: ACFT	TOTAL	TIME:

Entered	into	logbook: 

## Aerial	360	Imaging

Preflight	Form	and	Checklist

In	the	interest	of	public	safety	and	the	safety	of	manned	aircraft, the	Pilot

- in

- Command	(PIC)	must	complete	this	form

prior	to	each flight	of	the	UAS

. Aerial	360	Imaging	will	maintain	this	form for review	by	the	F AA	upon	request	at	anytime.

Date: Time: Location:

Nearest	Airport: METAR:

WX	: VFR					MVFR					IFR					MIFR Airspace Class :

Distance	from	Airport	(NM):

Tower/ATC	Phone	Number: Notified:					Yes					No

Contact	Name: Time:

Nearest	Major	Intersection:

Distance	from	Flight	Location	(NM):

Safety	Concerns:

Additional	Comments:

Pre

- Flight	Checklist:

Check	Batteries

Inspect	Fuselage	for	damage

Inspect	Propellers	for	damage

Verify	Compass/Satellite

Check	WX (wind	advisory)

Check	for	Airport	Vicinity Check	Airspace	(Overlying)

Check	Surroundings

Notify	Tower/ATC	if	applicable

Inspect	T akeoff and	L anding	area

Warning	S igns	(150	foot	barrier)

Check	Controller	B atteries©2015

– Aerial	360	Imaging

– All	Rights	Reserved 2 N

- Number: ACFT	TOTAL	TIME:

Entered	into	logbook: In

- F light	Procedures:

Start	timer

– Watch

Preform	Hover	Check

Takeoff	and	Land	same	area

Verify	Controller	S ticks	are	center Maintain	Situational	Awareness

Maintain	”sterile standards ”	during	flight

Constantly	Plan	for	Emergency

Emergency	Procedures:

The	UAS	will	be	landed immediately if	any	of	the	following	occurs:

• Manned	aircraft	is	seen	or	heard	in	vicinity of	flight

• Pilot	is	distracted	from	focusing	on	the	flight

• Change	in	weather,	preventing	the	flight	from	continuing

• Increase	of	bird	activity	in	the	vicinity	of	the	flight

• Any	 action	 or	 unsafe event,	 which can	 cause	 the	 pilot	 distraction, interruption or

an ything,	which can	be deemed	unsafe.

Take off	time: Landing	time: Total	Flt	Time:

Squawks:

Corrective	Action	Taken:

I	certify I	have	completed	 the	above	 form	and checklist	prior	 to	 flight	of	 the	UAS	and the

information	documented,	is	true	and	correct	to	the	best	of	my	knowledge.

PIC Name: Observer’s	Name:

Signature:
<PAGE>





                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

October 24, 2003

Doane Pet Care Company
Brentwood, Tennessee

Re: Registration Statement Nos. 333-43643 and 333-70759 on Form S-3 and
Registration Statement Nos. 333-104676, 333-104676-01 and 333-104676-02 on Form
S-2

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated October 24, 2003 related to our
reviews of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is
not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Nashville, Tennessee
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1229 

To repeal Public Law 107–40. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2017 

Ms. LEE (for herself and Mr. JONES) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal Public Law 107–40. 

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 ‘‘Repeal of the Author5 ization for Use of Military Force’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDING. 

7 Congress finds that the Authorization for Use of Mili8 tary Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), 

9 signed into law on September 18, 2001, has been used 

10 to justify a broad and open-ended authorization for the 

11 use of military force and such an interpretation is incon12 sistent with the authority of Congress to declare war and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1229 IH

1 make all laws for executing powers vested by the Constitu2 tion in the Government of the United States. 

3 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107–40. 

4 Effective 180 days after the date of the enactment 

5 of this Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force 

6 (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby re7 pealed. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### DAVID PARRIS *vs.*PIERCE *ROBERTS.*

A. and ÍB. entered into the following agreement in writing : ‘‘ Sold to B. one I gray filly for one hundred and fifteen bushels of corn, which the said filly stands good to the said (A.), as his own right and property, until she is paid for.” Signed and scaled by A. Held, that the legal title to the mare still remauunl in A. and that the sale was only conditional.

The c4se of *Ellison*v. *Jones,*4 Ire. 48. cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Buncombe County, Special Term, July 1851, his Honor Judge Bailey presiding.

This was an action of trover.

The plaintiff owned a horse, which he agreed to sell to one W. 1). Jones upon the terms set forth in a paper writing, which is as follows:

“March the 20th day, 1848„ This day sold to Wm. D.„ Jones one gray filly for one hundred and fifteen bushels of corn, which the said filly stands good to the said David' *269Parris as his own right and property, until she is paid for. Given under my hand and seal, signed and delivered in the presence of WJVL. I). JONES. (Seal.)

“Test. M. M. Jones.” ■

The horse was delivered to Jones. In July lb'48 one Leander Mills levied an execution upon the said horse, as the property of Jones, and sold the same, the plaintiff being present and forbidding the sale. Mills was at the time of the levy and sale the deputy of the defendant, who was the sheriff of Buncombe County.

Two questions arose in the case : 1st, whether the property in the horse passed to Jones according to the written agreement, or did it remain in the plaintiff? And 2ndly: Suppose it remained in the plaintiff, did Mills, by what he did under the execution, subject himself, and consequently the defendant, as his principal, to this action ?

The Court charged the jury, that, according to a proper ■construction of the written agreement, the property in the horse remained in the plaintiff; and that, if Mills sold the same under an execution, and was acting at the time as the deputy of the defendant, the defendant would be liable.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

*Avery,*for the plaintiff.

*J. W. Woodjin,*for the defendant.

Nash, J.

In the charge of his Honor there is no error. By the contract between the plaintiff and Jones, the legal ¡title to the horse sold is expressly, reserved. The title did not .pass to Jones — the sale was but conditional. *Ellison*v. *Jones,*4 Ire. 48, *Gaither*v. *Teague,*4 Ire. 65. The present case in principle is the. same with those. Here, the plaintiff expressly reserves the title to the horse sold, until the price is paid, and Jones, the purchaser, gave his *270note for the price, which was not due when the constable sold. We are at a loss to perceive upon what principle the case was brought here.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.