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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 21 

To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en bloc 

consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ‘‘midnight rules’’, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Mr. ISSA (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. MARINO, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mr. 

RATCLIFFE, Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. 

GOWDY, Mr. PETERSON, and Mrs. HARTZLER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide 

for en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval 

for ‘‘midnight rules’’, 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 ‘‘Midnight Rules Relief 

5 Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 21 IH

1 SEC. 2. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF 

2 DISAPPROVAL PERTAINING TO ‘‘MIDNIGHT 

3 RULES’’. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 801(d) of title 5, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(4) In applying section 802 to rules described under 

8 paragraph (1), a joint resolution of disapproval may con9 tain one or more such rules if the report under subsection 

10 (a)(1)(A) for each such rule was submitted during the 

11 final year of a President’s term.’’. 

12 (b) TEXT OF RESOLVING CLAUSE.—Section 802(a) 

13 of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

14 (1) by inserting after ‘‘resolving clause of which 

15 is’’ the following: ‘‘(except as otherwise provided in 

16 this subsection)’’; and 

17 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘In the 

18 case of a joint resolution under section 801(d)(4), 

19 the matter after the resolving clause of such resolu20 tion shall be as follows: ‘That Congress disapproves 

21 the following rules: the rule submitted by the ll 

22 relating to ll; and the rule submitted by the ll 

23 relating to ll. Such rules shall have no force or 

24 effect.’ (The blank spaces being appropriately filled 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 21 IH

1 in and additional clauses describing additional rules 

2 to be included as necessary)’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Charles & Colvard, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert S. Thomas, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                  
|----------------------------------
|/s/ Robert S. Thomas              
|Robert S. Thomas                  
|Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
|March 11, 2008
AAM-11-468-E September 28, 2011

Exemption No. 9930A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0746

Ms. Lynn Michaud Interstate Aviation, Inc.

62 Johnson Avenue Plainville, CT 06062

Dear Ms. Michaud:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9930. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated Septem ber 21, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Interstate Aviation, Inc. (Interstate Aviation), for an extension of Exemption No. 9930. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Interstate Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulation, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Interstate Aviation.

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9930 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the2

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Interstate Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Interstate Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 9930 to September 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9930 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9930.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
ex4_4.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
4.4

    


    


    The
following is a summary of an amendment to the Ford Motor Company Savings and
Stock Investment Plan for Salaried Employees, effective January 8,
2007:

    


    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              ·

            	
              Add
      the Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund – Investor Shares as an available
      investment option.
- ~ Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111807 

HlP SECREi HA NOLE VIA 

BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM 

1/, NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

/

1 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

THE NRO STAFF September 23, 1969 

NOTE FOR DR. McLUCAS 

~-------~ 

(in Mr. Packard Is office) called me early this 

afternoon to relay information on the discussion of two particular 

subjects by the 303 Committee during its meeting this morning: 

1. You are aware that we were asked by Mr. Packard on 

September 12 to provide a copy of Mr. Laird's letter to the 

President and our NRP Annex to the STG report to each of the 

members of the 303 Committee for their review. 

stated that the Committee decided this morning that there was no 

need to distribute the NRP Annex to the Space Task Group. Dr. 

Kissinger indicated that the Vice President will be told that a 

briefing of the NRP is available should he wish to hear it. It is 

our understanding that we would be asked to present this briefing 

should it be requested. 

2. Dr. Kissinger indicated that the President desired some 

description of the NRP and the NRO. Mr. Packard has asked Dr. 

Tucker to provide to each of the 303 Committee members a copy 

of the basic DOD-CIA agreement on the NRP (charter} and a copy . 

of the document which establishes the NRO as a separate operating 

element of the DOD to manage and conduct the Program. Captain 

is preparing a draft of a note which Dr. Tucker will use in ~--~ 

transmitting the copy of these documents to Dr. Kissinger. Dr. 

Kissinger apparently will use these documents in discussing the 

NRP with the President. 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

/h~flWILLIAM R. YOST 

TOP SECRET EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

rl '°"'""'"°-----

COPY ___ OF ___ COPIES 

PAGE ___ OF ___ PAGES 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111807 
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111807 

:Df!ICE OF THE DEPUTY 1CRETARY OF DEFENSE 

.,. 

tt 

7 ~ NRP ~ ~ 

~/4 ~. 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111807
Argued and submitted June 16,

appeal dismissed October 5,

reconsideration denied November 18, petition for review denied December 20, 1983 (296 Or 236)

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of POTRECK, *Respondent, and*POTRECK, *Appellant.*

(8110-67953; CA A24737)

669 P2d 841

Michael J. Kavanaugh, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

David L. Rich, Hillsboro, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*854PER CURIAM

Husband appeals from a decree of dissolution. Wife died before the decree was entered. There has been no substitution of parties. Without service of notice of appeal on a proper party, we do not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we must dismiss.

Appeal dismissed.
FOR TOUb

SIGNATURE

APPROVAL

COMENTS

COORD.

INFO. #7--

a.

Return to

File

Tickler

Mtg With

Nagalimn

SUBJECT: AVao /1--eh m* 4 

ifrid be/X(0140V- k re 44

. Dr. Nam" ha so&

Relavel, /a . 4-••-•

S r

YOUR COMMENTS/DIRECTION: 

By:
•

• '0 DEPARENT OF THE AIR FORCE ti

•

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY • .111n11n110.

J

406"302.

MEMORANDUM

VIOL 0.4

itemi
•

. •

. •

•

.-A7

LisAq;ipnel, USAF

•

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM

January 28, 1972

NOTE FOR DR. NARA Dr. Mamas has seen.

You asked about the camera that was

flown aboard Apollo 15. It was an Itek

F 3.5, 24 inch focal length camera. It

is a derivative of the IRIS II camera which

is in turn a derivative of the EA-80.

Changes for the Apollo flight, necessitated

by the lunar orbital environment, are a

different image motion compensation cam

and tailored packaging. For the lunar

mission no haze filter was used, whereas

in the aircraft configuration a Wrattan

24 or 25 filter is employed. Velocity

considerations dictated use of a Type 3400

Pan X film for the lunar mission, yielding

about 90 lines per millimeter. In the

laboratory, using Type 3414 film, this

camera can achieve 135 lines per millimeter.

Had this flown in an earth orbit, it

would have yielded a best resolution of

25 to 35 feet from an altitude of 230 n.m..

Attached for your information is Major

Schow's copy of the camera manual. He can

answer your technical questions.

vs'

.1.•
1 

### AMS - Beefcarcassrevisions

From: Michael Kelsey <mkels ey@okcattlemen.org> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 2:20 PM To: AMS - Beefcarcassrevisions Subject: Comments for AMS-LPS-14-0052: Request for C omments U.S. Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef Attachments: AMS Beef Grades - Nov 2014.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Please find attached comments related to AMS

‐ LPS

‐ 14

‐ 0052.

Thank you,



### Michael Kelsey Executive Vice President Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association 405

‐ 235

‐ 4391 (office) 405

‐ 403

‐ 6097 (cell) www.okcattlemen.org
August 2023

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Forest Trails and Landings (Code 655) 

Forest trails and landings involves the creation and

management of temporary or infrequently used routes,

paths, or cleared areas. 

Practice Information 

Forest trails and landings are installed and maintained for

infrequent access to conduct management activities such

as forest stand improvement, pruning, fire suppression, or

harvest of forest products. The conservation objective is to

allow suitable access while minimizing onsite and offsite damage to other natural resources. 

Specifications will consider— 

• Timing and use of equipment to maintain site productivity and minimize soil disturbance. 

• Management of slash, debris, and vegetative material so as not to present an unacceptable fire

or pest hazard. 

• Proper design of water bars, dips, and other drainage measures. 

• Seeding for erosion control. 

• Planting of vegetation that provides wildlife food and cover. 

• Location of trails and landings to preserve aesthetic qualities of the area. 

• Periodic removal of refuse and garbage. 

• Closing the trails after the management activity to help control erosion and reduce maintenance

costs. 

Common Associated Practices 

Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Forest Trails and Landings (Code 655) is commonly applied

with CPSs such as Access Road (Code 560), Critical Area Planting (Code 342), Firebreak (Code 394),

Forest Stand Improvement (Code 666), Fuel Break (Code 383), Mulching (Code 484), Stream

Crossing (Code 578), Structure for Water Control (Code 587), Tree/Shrub Pruning (Code 660), Upland

Wildlife Habitat Management (Code 645), and Woody Residue Treatment (Code 384). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
13 - 23 - 00068 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF E.M.N., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 444th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010
- 02 - 1095 - H

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion

. Appellee, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, is exempt from all costs

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 29, 2024
*November 12, 1932.*

#### Zielsdorf (Genevieve), Respondent, vs. Buchholz and another, Appellants.

.For the appellants: *Bender, Trump, McIntyre & Freeman,*attorneys, and *Kneeland A, Godfrey*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Bottum, Hudnall, Lecher, McNamara & Michael*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
DONALD

Colonel, USAF

Executive Assistant

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

48P—SECRET

*I A

C

ISFNATIONALRECONNAISSANCEOFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

26 August 1974

MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL KULPA

SUBJECT: Action on Dr. Martin's Memo of 19 August 1974

This is to note that following the discussion requested

in Mr. Plummer's 20 August memo on the subject, SAF/SS was

asked to prepare a letter of reply to Dr. Martin.

You assigned a suspense of 30 August to this follow-on

action.

7%7777 .

. •

2 Attachments

.0

OLAIINNED J WIMPS PROM

swum.

m

SCHEDULE OF aIIICYTwE ORDER 11112 Eximpnow wore.

C PA SONY 102 DECLAIMS ON WPM.

•

ccrmoi. NO IN' irrTiMAL 

COPY OF COPIES

PACIE_LOF 1 PAGES
i Hi 01.1,811.1

IS)- NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHING1ON. D.C.

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

•

20 August 1974

MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL KULPA

SUBJECT: John Martin's Memo of 19 August 1974

Reference the attached memo, I wonder if Jack Martin

was briefed on our NRO Research and Development Advisory

Council which provides some degree of consideration for

"Who cares"? Or, more directly, I wonder if he knows that

the programs are reviewed by the IRAC R&D Council which

has as one of its principal objectives the assessment of the

relevance and impact of the technology programs.

Even if these reviews answer the question, I do endorse

the idea of very select small groups of scientists, such as

represented by the SAB, to solve some of the larger problems.

A major example would be our NIPS.

Let's discuss. es-- .000,,Ar — 2 A, 01,"

J. MA.

J. W. Plum111111111

cc: Dr.. Cook .

Attachment

Memo fr John Martin

dtd 19 Aug 74

C

allk Lussortao is

GORY SIG DICLASOFY 0.1 earoa

GENERAL OS ratOuicAri. Top_sEcRET- EXECUTIVE OMR Sint CREW MO/

•

CONTROL NO • 

. COPY OF COPIES

PAGE—r-OF = PAGES

.s-3)-,- 7-5 4$/e
-

( OFFICC or THC ASSISTANT SCCIRCTARY

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR 8*-`110E

WASKINGTON 20230

August.19, 1974

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. PLUMMER

When I was in Los Angeles recently I visited SAFSP (we talked

about my doing so) and was briefed on the technology program. I

think it is true that (1) -6 is doing good work, and (2) the relevance and

impact of the work could be better. By that I mean that I think the

program would benefit if for each program element the question had to

be answered: "Who cares? " If the "who" is not at or near the decisionmaking level with respect to intelligence substance or resources, then

perhaps the money could be better spent. Another way to assist the

matter of relevance and impact would be the utilisation of an SAB panel

or other advisory group. Such groups could bring to the program their

insights gained elsewhere as well as (considering the necessary security)

giving currency to SP ideas in other forums.

What I have said requires no great depth of insight: it is just the

obvious way that I have seen the Agency with respect to its projects in

your Program and elsewhere.

Copy to

General Bradburn

'Cop - To Aa6
* Judge King did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7381
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TYRONE L. FRIESON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-89-117, CA-97-219-2) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, * Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Frieson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Tyrone Frieson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Frieson, Nos. CR-89-117; CA-97- 219-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
one

THE NRO STAFF

co/11111111

cc.

-WI-NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE laraTIMPulig

WASHINGTON. D.C.

12 April 1976

18P-SECREI

MEMORANDUM TO ARMY SPACE PROJECT OFFICE

SUBJECT: 1IIIIIIIBillets for the Army

We have been receiving an increasing number of requests

for 1.1.111billets from Army elements. It is recognized

that because of recent exercises and other activities, there

is a greater awareness within the Army for the capabilities

available from NRP systems. As a result of this increased

awareness, this has resulted in the cited additional billet

requests.

In order to insure that an appropriate billet

structure is established now and in the future for the Army,

the NRO Staff needs to be briefed as to present and future

billet requirements at the earliest convenient date. The

NRO Staff points of contact are Major William L. Griego and

Major William H. Geiger.

Deputy Director for DoD

and Interagency Policy

CLANOVIE04111.XIMPT MON OMAN. 104i0OLO OP 10111CUTIW MOON 11102 axampnam CATE 00111I a02 DOCLAOOPII On NIP OM C L SYSTEM

-TOP-SECRETcoorroun P40 12831 n

COPV2._,OF COM B:

FAO& 1 OF 1 PAGE:
#### Patti, Respondent, vs. S. Heller Elevator Company, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county dated February 8, 1926: Oscar M. Fritz, Judge.

Personal injury. Judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.

For the appellant: *Rubin, Zabel & Rouiller*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *loseph Padway*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005045EN.01001906.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/19

---

Removal from the register of Case C-35/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 45/40)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 24 September 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-35/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.

---

(1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.

1

---
o 

55~ fTl 

I 

'J 

'-J 

CO 

"", 

- T rUJ C' i: f' (} [T -- --i400ii4lio780 HmH-----

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07897 

MEl'vl0RANDUM FOR DR. FLAX 

SUBJECT: Space Council Meeting 

The 'Space Council met on February 14 and I attended as the 

DOD representative. 

I 

I 

During the discussion of the agenda item on l\10L-AAP duplication, Ambassador Bohlen, State replacement for Ambassador Kohler, 

questioned whether l\10L had been approved by USIB or his committee 

(NSAM 156 Committee) to review the value of MOL to the reconnais-

\ 

\ sance program. 

I explained to him that the USIB was a requirements group and 

that they did not approve the programs selected for fulfilling the requirements. 

I further explained to him that his committee should concern 

themselves with the national policy on how much information on lVIOL 

should be surfaced and how fast. 

I suggested that we brief Mr. Bohlen on the MOL program as 

soon as possible. 

Several aspects of l\1r. Bohlenrs comments cause me grave 

concern. 

First, I am not sure he understands the responsibilities of the 

NSAM 156 Committee. I would like for you to take the DOD responsibility for explaining the workings of the NSAIvI 156 Committee. 

Second, 1V1r. Bohlen seemed to be uninformed on current MOL 

status and in general expressed similar opposition to the program 

that we have heard Mr. Helms express from time to tirne. 

, I stated that the program value and scope were reviewed in 

((t detail and endorsed by Mr. McNamara, Mr. Schultze, l'vIr. Vance, I 

DORIAN HIl.HOU: \f1A. 

BYEMAN 

Dr .. Brown and Dr. Hornig before the President announced the 

initiation of MOL. I further stated that since the program \vas 

lOP SECRET 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07897 

CON.ROl NO,..--__ --., 

copy _* ~F~ 
DORIAN H"NDlE VIA 

I II' ~fr.RFT Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07897 

initiated it has been reviewed by me continuously and that I felt the 

program was valuable to the future recon!1aissance requirement. 

I also stated that I believe Dick Helms and Mr. Bohlen are the 

only ones remaining to be convinced on the importance of MOL to 

National Defense. 

I would like for you to attend the MOL briefing for me. It has 

been scheduled for Mr. Bohlen's office, Room 7207, State Department, at 1500, February 16. I have been informed by Mr. Packard) 

State, that all State personnel in attendance will have the necessary 

special clearance. , 

\ 

Mr. Packard was given the suggestion that this would be a good 

time to update Under Secretary Katzenbach on MOL if it is convenient for him. If he does not attend it might be well if a MOL briefing 

were arranged for him as soon as possible. 

CONTROL '0 ___ _ 

BYEMAN TOP SECRET COpy ;)..., OF t.I - Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 07897