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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1247 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1247

  To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as ``Harry S. Truman 
                            Union Station''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2015

  Mrs. McCaskill (for herself and Mr. Blunt) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as ``Harry S. Truman 
                            Union Station''.

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

SECTION 1. HARRY S. TRUMAN UNION STATION.

    (a) Designation.--Union Station, located at 40 Massachusetts 
Avenue, NE., Washington, DC, shall be known and designated as ``Harry 
S. Truman Union Station''.
    (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 ``Harry S. 
Truman Union Station''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2005031EN.01002002.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/20

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 November 2004

in Case T-173/03: Anne Geddes v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark ‘NURSERYROOM’ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 31/40)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-173/03: Anne Geddes, residing at Auckland (New Zealand), represented by G. Farrington, Solicitor, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: E. Dijkema and A. Folliard-Monguiral) – action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 February 2003 (Case R 839/2001-4) regarding an application for registration of the Community word mark ‘NURSERYROOM’ – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 November 2004, in which it:

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

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

June 25, 2012

t0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144826

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144826

COA: 303550 

Oakland CC: 2010-233570-FH

MARIO HUITRON MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 99-60342 Summary Calendar

__________________________

PERRIN HURDLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(95-CV-247-BrR)

_____________________________________________

October 27, 1999 Before POLITZ, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam * In this appeal from the dismissal of his employment discrimination suit, asserted under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et. seq. , PlaintiffAppellant Perrin Hurdle asks us to reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Sears, Roebuck & Company. Hurdle complains that the district courterred in concluding that he failed to allege facts sufficient to

make out a prima facie case of age discrimination. The Supreme Court’s decision in Hazen Paper Company v. Biggins , 507 U.S. 604 (1993), controls this case. Whether the court applies the age discrimination test applicable to individual employee discharges, see Price v. Marathon Cheese Corp. , 119 F.3d 330, 336-37 (5 th Cir. 1997), or the one applicable to reductions in force, see Woodhouse v. Magnolia Hosp. , 92 F.3d 248, 252 (5 th Cir. 1996), Hurdle bears the burden of producing evidence that he was discriminated against because of his age. The essence of Hurdle’s complaint is that he was discharged because his pension benefits were about to vest. The Supreme Court explicitly stated in Hazen Paper , however, that “a decision by [a] company to fire an older employee solely because he... is <

close to vesting’ would not constitute discriminatory treatment on the basis of age.” 507 U.S. at 612. Such conduct may be actionable under other substantive laws, such as ERISA, but it does not involve the inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotyping that is the essence of an ADEA claim. Id at 611-12. Hurdle does not point to any other evidence that would support the inference that he was discriminated against because of his age. The new management position created by Sears, Roebuck & Co.’s restructuring and reorganization, a position to which Hurdle argues he was entitled, was filled by a 57-year old employee who was 9 years older than the 48-year old Hurdle.Hurdle simply has presented no evidence that he was discriminated

against because of his age. As such, the decision of the district court must be

AFFIRMED.
# C_2005092EN.01003301.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/33

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3700 — EDP/LogicaCMG/Edinfor)

(2005/C 92/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 April 2005, 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/). 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/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3700. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3700. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

h1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143327 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143327 

 COA: 299693 

Monroe CC: 08-036595-FH 

MELVIN DEON MALLOY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 8, 2011 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Bunn v. Moore’s Executors.

This case, which had been reserved for the consideration of the court for three or four years last past, now came on to be decided. The court said it. was no longer necessary to keep this cause waiting for the opinion -of the court, as it. liad already been considered by the Judges and they had proceeded in consequence of that consideration, to direct in several cases which occurred within the present circuit, how interest should be calculated — that on the Western circuit last spring, Judge. Macay had concurred in giving such directions, or had given them himself. [ *Gen Davie,*at the bar, said Judge Macay had told him his pinion was as the directions had been given this circuit.] '

Per *curiam*

The interest must he calculated by the following rule — it must be calculated upon the principal, from the time it commenced to the day of the first payment; if the payment was equal and no more than equal, to the interest then due, it must extinguish the interest; if it exceeded the interest, the balance, after extinguishing the interest, must be deducted from the *principal;*if the payment was less than the interest, then the balance of interest must remain until the next payment. Interest must then be calculated upon the principal remaining, to the time.of the tn-xt payment, which next payment must be applied in the first place, to the whole of the interest then due ; and so *toties quoties*— and in the present case, let the interest be calculated by this rule. And the Plaintiff han judgment. *Vide*4 *Term,*613.

*Note.*— Vide Anonymous, 2 *Hay.*17. *North & Prescott*v. *Mullett, ibid.*151. *Yancy’s Admr.*v. *Mutter’s Ex’r. Conf. Rep.*513.
#### State *v.*Oldham.

The act of *1779, Rev. ch.*1 *St, sec. 2,*respecting the appointment of Jurors, is only directory, and does not apply to Grand-Jurors.

He was convicted at this term, of the murder of one *Archibald*Jackson, and it being demanded of him what he had to say, way sentence of death should not be passed, his counsel, *Mr. Duffy*and *Mr. Taylor,*offered reasons in arrest of judgmenl, all of which were abandoned in the course of the observations made npon them, except (he following, viz : That several of those who were of the grand-jury that found the bill, naming them particularly, amongst whom was *Mr.*Hodges, the foreman, were persons who then severally had a suit or suits depending and at issue in this court, and were therefore disqualified to serve as jurors; and for the maintenance of this objection, they relied upon 1779, *ch.*6, *sec.*2, in which is this proviso, viz: Provided always, that no County Court shall 'knowingly nominate any person to serve as a juror at two courts successively, or any person who shall have an action or suit at issue in the Superior Court, at, the term to which lie shall be so nominated ; and they said, that under this clause. Judge- Macay and Judge Haywood, on the Western circuit of the spring 1795, had rejected all such jurors as disqualified.

*Per curiam*

This act is only directory. The intent of it was to exclude suitors from the petit jury, from an apprehension lest, in the course of the term, such persons might combine mutually to serve each other. This is not to be apprehended in the case of a grand-juror, who has it not in his power to render a *quid pi'o quo*in the same way, should he be ever so much inclined. This art isas well directory to the Superior as to the County Courts. If the County Court ought not knowingly, to nominate suitors for jurors, neither ought this court knowingly, to receive them as petit jurors when sent. The intent of the act is, that they shall be excluded, and so far as the i iew of this act extends, the Superior Court will not suffer its object to be eluded. Upon this ground, the court proceeded in lhe spring circuit of 1795. *Et per*Williams-that practice was well begun, and I do not know why we have not continued it. The reasons were overruled.
p. 1


# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 68 ) ll-E-2 8 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:05 AM Sheet 68 of 264P. 2 JVT,BY:T0MK1N S 1ND. , INC . ; 8 - 9-9 5 ; 10:14A M JLASCO B/W-ENG&CREDIT- * ^firtVfS**!***

7 * 7 1 

### / * W DliMSn? ^ Co/Dep t Phone # Fax * t~ ~ ,£&* • Fro m ^ p pjg CO. Phone « Fax * 91 9 54 1 007 ? AJ@4-5 2

VC T REPOR

T
« v am m juunsmn

, u

_-toironmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y —-----------_--_-______ _ Madelein e Strum , U S Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y P«teq f gon^ct ; Jur

y 26,199 5 Contact ; Isidr o B . Pe , Jr., Facilitie

s Engineerin

g Manage r Comp_nv/Ayencv : Lasco Bathwar e (Tomkin s Industries

) Telephon e Number : (714 ) 993-122 0 ext. 42 2 CONTAC T SUMMAR

Y (Responses t o telephon

e conversatio

n wit h Wanit a Dunston )

• Phon

e contac twa s establishe

d 'wit h Isidr o B . Pe , Jr. , o f

Lasc o Bathware, in attemp

tt o answe rsevera l key question

s concernin

g the oxidize

rusag e o f three o f Lasco' s facilities ; thos e i n Lancaster

, Texas , EJuabethtown

, Pennsylvania

, an d Sout h Boston , Virginia

.
• Althoug

h eac h plan tcontrol s th e gelcoatin

g process , emissio

n point s whic h exhaus tt o incinerato rdiffe rwit h eac h facility. A tth

e Lancaster

, T X plant , the mixki

g process fbguive s an d fame s from sprayin

g a n vente

d t o the oxidizer

. Th e sam e tw o emissio

n point s ar e vente d a tthe Elkabethtown, P

A plant , a s well . Atth

e S out h Bosto n plant

, onl y di e sprayin

g forces ar e controlle

d b y th e oxidizer

.

• A teac

h facility, th e sam

e type o f oxidize ri s used ; a regenerativ

e therma l oxidizer, manuftcture

d b y Reeco . Capita

l an d operatin g costs o f 0.75 M an d 120000 , respectivel

y wer e give n fo rth e T X plant; the

y ar e abou tth e sam e fo reac h plan t

• Th e therma l efficienc y (relate d t o energ y usage ) for plant

s are : PA—95% , TX-90% , an d VA-90% .
• Th e captur e efficienc y i s greate rtha n 99.9 % an

d the destructio

n efficienc y i s 98 % fo

reac h facility. Informatio n i s Accurate : 

## ^uJU, ^ (g ^ Isidr o Pe , Jr . ftddrKoYialQUei-RervS 

## I . Coul d \&i kavez-foe, hou-eya M Amber s o£ 4 W S4o* e f£tfm>tf y <xge~cU--& r«*c\v pk\<v t^TK , th, VA) ? 

## I|
. SENT

. BY:TOMKIN S IND. ,

Pennsylvania :

Virginia : INC
. ; 8 - 9-9 5 ; 10:15A M iU$Cb B/W-ENG&CREDIT

- ~



### Stat e Permittin g Agencie s

Commonwealt h o

f Pennsylvani a Departmen t o

f Environmenta l Protectio n On e Arara t Boulevard Harrisburg , PA . 1711 0 Attn . Mr . Lei f Erickso n 717-637-458 7 Commonwealt h o

f Virgini a Departmen t of Environmenta l Qualit y 7701-1 0 Timberlak

e Roa d Lynchburg , VA . 2450 2 Attn . Mr . Larr

y Leonar d 804-582-512 0 P. 3 91 9 54 1 0072; # 2 /

2

- . _.. . . /

Texas : Texa s Natura l Resource s Conservatio n Commissio n

642 1 Cam p Bowi e Boulevar d Fort h Worth , Texa s 7611 6 Attn . Mr . Jess e Macia s 817-732-553 1



## "

Z
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7117

RONALD JERRY SAWYER, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EDWARD MURRAY; R. A. YOUNG; LARRY HUFFMAN; WARDEN OSBORNE; G. D. JOHNSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RUSSELL; BOB STAMPER, Sergeant; LONNIE SAUNDERS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HUMPHRIES;V. V. GRANT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WARNER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MINTER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICERWAGNER; LIEUTENANT DOSS; JOHNNIE RUSSELL; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SHEFFY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CREGGAR; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLEVINS, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-389-R) Submitted: November 16, 1995 Decided: January 29, 1996 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Ronald Jerry Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel, "Motion for Award of Expenses of Motion on Appeal," "Motion to Amend Injunction Into a 42 U.S.C. [§] 1983 [1988] Complaint with Relief Prayer At Conclusion of Claims," "Motion for Relief of Order Due to Mistake," motion for sanctions, and motion for default judgment.
3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying his motions for sanctions and default judgment. He also appeals fromthe denial of his motion to vacate the court's orders denying appointment of counsel, petition for habeas corpus ad testificandum, and various default motions. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.§ 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. * 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
Oa

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY

WASHINGTON GI. D. C.

DEC ! 11159

MORANDUM FOR THE ASSISThRT SECRETARY OF THEM FORCE

(RESTALICS & TEVEIDINCIP)

SUBJECT: Electronic Photo-Enhancing of Reconnaissance Photography

The SAMOS program has a potential for obtaining tremendous volumes of

reconnaissance photography. To accommodate this volume, developments are

underway to provide necessary equipments and techniques for automatic film

processing, cataloguing and storage. However, it appears that insufficient

emphasis is being provided in the area of photo interpretation. High

quality photo interpretation of current aircraft reconnaissance system output is difficult for a variety of reasons. This already difficult task

vill be even more difficult with the advent of large volumes of the relatively lover resolution output photograft of satellite systems.

The attached internal ARM memorandon describes some of the factors

contributing to the photo interpreter's difficulties. It also recommends

the initiation of a program of development and testing of a ground system

of photo enhancement which would facilitate photo interpretation. This

agency had planned to support such a program for use with the SAMS System

if similar vork vas not already being sponsored by the Air Force.

Due to transfer ,of the SANDS program, it is no longer appropriate for

ARPh to support this type work. However, this area is of such importance

in terms of a satisfactory intelligence end product, that these memoranda

are offered for your consideration with the recoffoendstion that a program,

in the subject area, be implemented.

L,Q

Don R. Ostrander

Major General, USAF

Acting Director

Attachment

cc: 3/Gen. U. A. Boushey, AFDAT

IS 59-1301 - fil

SAFS FILE 511,-,51?
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffIntegrated Issue Resolution Status Report (NUREG-1762)

# Integrated Issue Resolution Status Report: Appendices A through D (NUREG-1762, Volume 2, Revision 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1762, Volume 2, Revision 1 (PDF - 17.5 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed**: March 2005**Date Published**: April 2005

Division of High-Level Waste Repository SafetyOffice of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This Integrated Issue Resolution Status Report provides background information about the status of prelicensing interactions between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concerning a potential high-level waste geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The NRC staff has, for many years, engaged in prelicensing interactions with DOE and various stakeholders. In recent years, DOE and NRC have reached a number of agreements related to key technical issues important to repository performance after permanent closure and items important to safety during the period before permanent closure. During the prelicensing period, the NRC staff also have undertaken a risk insights initiative to enhance the use of available risk information and develop, as a common basis for understanding, the significance of features, events, and processes that may affect the performance of potential engineered and natural barriers at Yucca Mountain.

This report provides an overview of available information and status (as of March 2004, with exceptions as noted) of the Key Technical Issue agreements reached between DOE and NRC. The report also documents the risk insights (Appendix D) and information considered by the NRC staff in formulating their views, including the results of in-depth reviews of available DOE and contractor documents; the independent confirmatory work of NRC and its contractor, the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses; published literature; and other publicly available information.

This report may be of value to stakeholders in understanding the technical rationale used by the NRC staff to identify certain information as being necessary for a quality license application. The staff has not made any determination about compliance with regulations applicable to a potential repository at Yucca Mountain. If DOE submits a license application for a potential repository at Yucca Mountain, the staff will review the information provided by DOE and make determinations based on information provided at that time.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021