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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 216 

To authorize modification or augmentation of the Second Division Memorial, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize modification or augmentation of the Second 

Division Memorial, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Division Memo5 rial Modification Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OR AUGMENTATION TO SECOND DI7 VISION MEMORIAL. 

8 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Second Indianhead Divi9 sion Association, Inc. Scholarship and Memorials Founda10 tion, an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 216 IH

1 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation 

2 under section 501(a) of such Code, is authorized to place 

3 three benches honoring the members of the Second Infan4 try Division killed in the Cold War in Korea, the War in 

5 Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan on the Second Division 

6 Memorial located in President’s Park, between 17th Street 

7 Northwest and Constitution Avenue in the District of Co8 lumbia. 

9 (b) APPLICATION OF COMMEMORATIVE WORKS

10 ACT.—Chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code (com11 monly known as the ‘‘Commemorative Works Act’’), shall 

12 apply to the design and placement of the benches referred 

13 to in subsection (a). 

14 (c) FUNDING.—Federal funds may not be used for 

15 modifications or augmentations authorized under sub16 section (a). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Schock, Appellant, vs. Finley and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Crawford & Crawford*of Superior.

For the respondents : *Sanborn, Lamoreux & Pray*of Ash-land.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
#### Estate of Rasmussen: Rasmussen, Appellant, vs. Jensen, Administrator, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Lillian M. Rasmussen, in pro. per.*

For the respondent: *Alfred L. Drury*of Kenosha.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
D.4. (+) Potential for 

contamination of potable 

water in wells or springs

LEGEND

Pathway

C.3. (+) Local 

groundwater quality to

potable standards

C.2. (+) Surface water 

quality and more robust

aquatic and riparian 

habitats

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

Relining by CPS 521a, 521b, 521c, 

or 521d; relocation of waste 

management facility to more 

suitable location

I.3. (-) Income to 

producer for 

mitigation

Repair of existing or installation Mitigating practice

of new water well (642) or spring 

development (574)

I.2. (-) Income to producer 

for legal fees and practice

mitigation

I.1. (+) Illness or death of 

groundwater consumers of

affected potable water 

supplies

D.5. (+) Potential for lawsuits 

and other legal matters

D.3. (+) Potential 

for surface water

contamination

D.2. (+) Information on location, 

extent, type, and severity of

local groundwater contamination

D.1. (+) Information on 

performance of agricultural

waste manage systems

A monitoring well, monitoring well nest, or 

monitoring well system to provide(s) access 

for collecting groundwater samples and 

hydrogeologic data

Monitoring Well (353)

Start

Initial setting: Where controlled access for sampling 

groundwater is needed near an agricultural waste 

storage or waste treatment facility, agricultural waste 

management system, or other area of concern to detect 

the occurrence of seepage and to monitor groundwater 

quality through time.

C.1. (+) Production, management, 

and net return to producer

NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM September 2020

Associated practice

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect
1

Chaudhari, Narendra

From: Duclos, John <John.Duclos@des.nh.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 2:40 PM

To: Chaudhari, Narendra

Subject: RE: Non-Aqueous Corrosive Waste Regulated by NH

Attachments: Copy of NH02 2014.xlsx

Hi Narendra,  

Attached is a table query on our manifest tracking database for NH02 which was used as the first waste code on the

manifest for 2014.  Hope this is what you were looking for. If you need more let me know.  

Thanks ‐John

John J. Duclos, Administrator

Hazardous Waste Management Bureau

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95

Concord, NH 03302‐0095

John.Duclos@des.nh.gov

Tel: (603) 271‐1998

Fax: (603) 271‐2456

This e‐mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely and exclusively for the use of the persons to whom it is

addressed. The information contained in this electronic message and any attached files may be privileged, confidential

or otherwise protected by law or regulation. Please notify me at (603) 271‐1998 or reply to John.Duclos@des.nh.gov if

you believe you have received this e‐mail accidentally or in error, and delete or destroy all copies of this electronic

message and any attachment or printed copies.

From: Chaudhari, Narendra [mailto:Chaudhari.Narendra@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 11:32 AM 

To: Duclos, John 

Cc: Oleary, Jim; Helms, Greg 

Subject: Non-Aqueous Corrosive Waste Regulated by NH 

Hi John,

I work with Jim Oleary in the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery at USEPA.  Jim referred me to you for a

question I have on non‐aqueous corrosive waste regulated by New Hampshire under the hazardous waste code

NH02.  This waste is defined under your state regulations as HW 403.04(b)(3).  I’m looking for information on the

following:

1. What types of non‐aqueous wastes are being regulated by New Hampshire as hazardous waste NH02?

2. Does New Hampshire maintain a database to keep track of NH02 wastes regulated to date (providing

information such as company name, volumes generated, pH values, etc.) and, if you do, can you send me a link

to access it?

Thanks.
# C_2004274EN.01000301.xml

| 9.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3586 — RIPPLEWOOD/HONSEL)

(2004/C 274/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 October 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3586. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3586. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex)

---
----

Action brought on 18 March 2004 by Railion Deutschland AG against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-109/04)

(2004/C 146/06)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 March 2004 by Raillion Deutschland AG, Mainz (Germany), represented by H. Johlen, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is an undertaking engaged in the transport of goods by rail. The complaint is against the Commission decision refusing an application by the Federal Republic of Germany for authority to allow a remission of customs debt in favour of the applicant. The liability to pay the customs debt arose because the applicant was alleged to have transported alcohol declared as paint from the Bremen free zone to the Hamburg free zone by rail. There was nothing to indicate to the applicant that the declaration was false. After the goods reached Hamburg, they were properly transported to their final destination in the Czech Republic.

The applicant claims inter alia that the decision failed to satisfy the essential procedural requirement of the right to be heard. It is true that the applicant was given a formal opportunity to state its position. However the right to be heard also requires that the arguments of the parties be considered; in its decision refusing the application the defendant did not deal with the arguments submitted. The Commission failed to have regard to the points made in relation to the different risks incurred by a rail freight company and a shipping company in a free zone. The Commission's decision was based on the premise that as a rail freight company the applicant would be dealt with in exactly the same way as a shipping company.

The applicant also claims that the decision infringes Article 239 of the Community Customs Code. The decision denies the existence of ‘special circumstances’ on grounds that are irrelevant or are based on facts that are not fully established. Because of the simplification of rail transport procedures, the applicant was exposed to greater risk of deception by fraud in relation to the goods transported. It could not eliminate or control that risk on its own. In particular, it was impossible in practice to inspect the container.

Lastly, the applicant claims that when making an equitable decision under Article 239 of the Community Customs Code it was necessary to take into account the fact that no financial loss was incurred by the European Communities and that at no stage was this threatened, as the alcohol was destined for the Czech market and was also delivered there.

----
# C_2004118EN.01002001.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/20

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-117/02: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Construction of holiday villages and hotel complexes - Failure to make a project to construct a hotel complex subject to such an assessment)

(2004/C 118/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

In Case C-117/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Caeiros), with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes, M. Telles Romão and J. Lois) acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg — application for a declaration that, by allowing consent to be given to a planned tourism complex including residential units, hotels and golf courses, located in the area of Ponta do Abano, without an assessment of the effects of that project on the environment, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 29.6.2002.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM QUARTERS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         859,710               2,342,849
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  753,807                   5,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,189,986               2,828,950
<PP&E>                                         114,045                  69,555
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,840                  16,786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,340,838               2,913,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,369,502                 605,401
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    11,059,293              10,484,681
<OTHER-SE>                                    (89,725)                (96,952)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   971,336               2,913,074
<SALES>                                        128,232                  38,166
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               128,232                  38,166
<CGS>                                          207,662                 782,937
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,662                 782,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,852,608               2,106,198
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,082                 103,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,917,376)             (2,954,879)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800                     800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,918,176)             (2,955,679)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,910,176)             (2,955,679)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.69)                  (1.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.69)                  (1.84)
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 20, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 20, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18I0083. WARREN J. EVANS, JR. v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2017CR0299
# C_2004284EN.01001701.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/17

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 September 2004

in Case T-254/03: José Manuel Lòpez Cejudo v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Officials - Allowance for living conditions - Accommodation - Articles 5 and 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations)

(2004/C 284/35)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-254/03: José Manuel López Cejudo, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brasilia (Brasil), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision of 12 June 2002 concerning the provision of the applicant with accommodation and of the decision of the Appointing Authority contained in the applicant's salary statement for July 2002 concerning the allowance for living conditions, together with a claim for default interest and a claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage — the Court of First Instance (single Judge: A.W.H. Meij); I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1988 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1988

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
1730 18th Street in Bakersfield, California, as the ``Merle Haggard Post 
                           Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MERLE HAGGARD POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1730 18th Street in Bakersfield, California, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Merle Haggard Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Merle 
Haggard Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED ACCOUNTING FIRM





Janel
World Trade Ltd.


150-14
132nd
Avenue


Jamaica,
New York 11434





Gentlemen:





We have
issued our report dated December 29, 2008 accompanying the financial statements
of Janel World Trade Ltd. and subsidiaries contained in the Form 10-K under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  We consent to the use of
the aforementioned report in the Form 10-K under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.





/S/ PARITZ & COMPANY,
    P.A.Paritz
      & Company, P.A.





Hackensack,
New Jersey


July 23,
2009
# C_2004271EN.01000101.xml

| 5.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/1

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

2,03 % on 1 November 2004

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

4 November 2004

(2004/C 271/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2874 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,64 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,433 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6966 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0793 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5304 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,58 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,154 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5769 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,481 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,44 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6786 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4313 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3141 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 39 684 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,81 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,885 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 883 800 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6992 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5506 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0131 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8636 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,133 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 433,39 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,8593 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2874

JPY

Japanese yen

136,64

DKK

Danish krone

7,433

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6966

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0793

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5304

ISK

Iceland króna

87,58

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,154

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5769

CZK

Czech koruna

31,481

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,44

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6786

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4313

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3141

ROL

Romanian leu

39 684

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,81

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,885

TRL

Turkish lira

1 883 800

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6992

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5506

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0131

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8636

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,133

KRW

South Korean won

1 433,39

ZAR

South African rand

7,8593

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)

2

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
----

Removal from the register of Case C-474/03 (1)

(2004/C 228/77)

By order of 17 May 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-474/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Greece.

----

(1)OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.

----