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

Calendar No. 342 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 152 

[Report No. 114–199] 

To prohibit gaming activities on certain Indian land in Arizona until the 

expiration of certain gaming compacts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 13, 2015 

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. FLAKE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

DECEMBER 18, 2015 

Reported by Mr. BARRASSO, without amendment 

A BILL 

To prohibit gaming activities on certain Indian land in 

Arizona until the expiration of certain gaming compacts. 

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 ‘‘Keep the Promise Act 

5 of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 152 RS

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds that— 

3 (1) in 2002, the voters in the State of Arizona 

4 approved Proposition 202, the Indian Gaming Pres5 ervation and Self-Reliance Act; 

6 (2) to obtain the support of Arizona voters to 

7 approve Proposition 202, the Indian tribes within 

8 Arizona agreed to limit the number of casinos within 

9 the State and in particular within the Phoenix met10 ropolitan area; and 

11 (3) this Act preserves the agreement made be12 tween the Indian tribes and the Arizona voters until 

13 the expiration of the gaming compacts authorized by 

14 Proposition 202. 

15 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

16 In this Act: 

17 (1) INDIAN TRIBE; CLASS II GAMING; CLASS III

18 GAMING.—The terms ‘‘Indian tribe’’, ‘‘class II gam19 ing’’, and ‘‘class III gaming’’ have the meanings 

20 given those terms in section 4 of the Indian Gaming 

21 Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703). 

22 (2) PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA.—The term 

23 ‘‘Phoenix metropolitan area’’ means land within 

24 Maricopa County and Pinal County, Arizona, that is 

25 north of latitude 33 degrees, 5 minutes, 13 seconds 

26 north, east of longitude 113 degrees, 20 minutes, 0 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 152 RS

1 seconds west, and west of longitude 110 degrees, 50 

2 minutes, 45 seconds west, using the NED 1983 

3 State Plane Arizona FOPS 0202 coordinate system. 

4 SEC. 4. GAMING CLARIFICATION. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—Class II gaming and class III 

6 gaming are prohibited on land within the Phoenix metro7 politan area acquired by the Secretary of the Interior in 

8 trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe after April 9, 2013. 

9 (b) EXPIRATION.—The prohibition in subsection (a) 

10 shall expire on January 1, 2027. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 342 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 152 

[Report No. 114–199] 

A BILL 

To prohibit gaming activities on certain Indian land 

compacts. in Arizona until the expiration of certain gaming 

DECEMBER 18, 2015 

Reported without amendment 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
23.1


CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors


Braintech, Inc.


We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-126190,
333-64872, 333-92253, 333-149538 and 333-149536) on Form S-8 and the
registration statement (No. 333-142277) on Form S-B2 of Braintech, Inc. of our
report dated March 6, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
Braintech, Inc. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders’ deficiency and cash flows for the years
then ended. Our report dated March 26, 2009, contains an explanatory paragraph
that states that the Company has incurred recurring losses from operations which
raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a
going-concern.


/s/ SmytheRatcliffe


Chartered Accountants


Vancouver, Canada


March 26,
2009
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1525 

To block any action from being taken to finalize or give effect to a certain 

proposed rule governing the Federal child support enforcement program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8, 2015 

Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To block any action from being taken to finalize or give 

effect to a certain proposed rule governing the Federal 

child support enforcement program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TAKING ANY ACTION TO FI4 NALIZE OR GIVE EFFECT TO CERTAIN PRO5 POSED RULE GOVERNING THE FEDERAL 

6 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec8 retary of Health and Human Services may not take any 

9 action to finalize, implement, enforce, or otherwise give ef10 fect to the proposed rule, entitled ‘‘Flexibility, Efficiency, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1525 IS

1 and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Pro2 grams’’ (79 Fed. Reg. 68548–68587, November 17, 

3 2014), or any proposal set forth in the proposed rule. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United States Court of Appeals

**For the First Circuit**

No. 00-2132 KEVIN RONDEAU, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge ] Before Boudin, Chief Judge , Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges .
Kevin R. Rondeau on brief pro se. Char les P. Bauer and Ransmeier & Spellman Professional Corporationon brief for appellees.

August 2, 2001-2-

Per Curiam . Appellant, Kevin Rondeau , appeals the district court 's dismissal of his complaint on the ground of res judicata. We give plenary review to a ruling based on res judicata. Pornv. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. , 93 F.3d 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1996). We have carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. Upon our independent review, we affirm , essentially for the reasons stated in the district court's orders, dated July 18, 2000, and September 13, 2000. Inaddition, there was neither error of law nor abuse of discretion inthe district court's refusal to recuse itself or to retransfer this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Rondeau also complains that the district court refused to permit him to represent his minor child or, in the alternative, to appoint counsel for her. But, there was no prejudice as a result of the court's decision. Rondeau had previously filed an identical complaint in 1998 and he was permitted to litigate in that case on behalf of himself and on behalf of his minor child. We affirmed the dismissal of that complaint in Rondeau v. State of New Hampshire , No. 98- 1802, (1st Cir. Feb. 26, 1999) (unpublished per curiam). Because the instant case was properly dismissed on the basis of res judicata -- a basis that would have remained a proper ground-3-

for dismissal even if the district court had permitted Rondeau to represent the interests of that minor child in this case as well -- there was no prejudice as a result of the district court's refusal to permit Rondeau to represent that child or to appoint counsel for her in this case. The motion to review the entire district court record is granted . Appellant's motions to strike the appellees' brief are denied . The judgment of the district court, dated September 14, 2000 is affirmed .
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03202]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1019-000]


Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability 
is March 2, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#571112051418393b3e393204222727382523173132253479303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4f2f1e6f7fbdad8dddad1e7c1c4c4dbc6c0f4d2d1c6d79ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 10, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03202 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1022/2006

of 5 July 2006         

amending Regulation (EC) No 1071/2005 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market (1), and in particular Articles 4, 5(1) and 12 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 1071/2005 is amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 July 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2060/2004 (OJ L 357, 2.12.2004, p. 3).

(2)OJ L 179, 11.7.2005, p. 1.

----

ANNEX

The following guidelines concerning poultrymeat are added to Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1071/2005:

                     ‘POULTRYMEAT

1.   General analysis of the situation

The crisis of consumer confidence in poultrymeat resulting from the reports on avian influenza in the media has resulted in a substantial fall in consumption. Consumer confidence in poultrymeat of Community origin should therefore be strengthened.

To achieve this, objective information on Community production systems (marketing standards) and the controls required should be provided in addition to the general legislation on controls and food safety.

2.   Goals

3.   Target groups

4.   Main messages

5.   Main channels

6.   Duration and extent of the programmes

The programmes must provide national coverage at least or relate to more than one Member State.

From 12 to 24 months, with a preference for multi-annual programmes with targets laid down for each stage.’               

----
**Exhibit
        32.1**
  WRITTEN
        STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY
        ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  The
        undersigned, Deborah C. Wright, is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
        of
        Carver Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”).
  This
        statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company
        of the
        Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2007 (the
“Report”).
  By
        execution of this statement, I certify that:
  a)
              the
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
                  78o(d)); and
  b)
              the
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                  the Company
                  as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
                  Report.
  June
                  29, 2007
              /s/
                  Deborah C. WrightDated
              Deborah
                  C. Wright
  This
        certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
        purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
        by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
        the
        Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon request.
#### Cupples, Guardian of Allen, v.-.

In a *caveat,*a verdict was found against the Plaintiff, which was confirmed in the County Court, before which time however, tne Plaintiff had obtained a grant from the State for the land ; and now in the Superior Court, it was held, that the grant could not be impeached at law, but as the Defendant appeared to have had the justice of the case on his side, he shall have the costs of the *caveat.*

This was a caveat. Upon the trial, the jury found for the party opposed to *Mr. Cupples,*which verdict was confirmed by the County Court $ before which time, *Mr. Cupples,*for his ward, had obtained a .grant from the Secretary's office$ and the verdict and proceedings of the County Court were moved into this court.

*Per curiam*

There have been so many derisions that a grant, although irregularly obtained, is valid in law, that we think obrselves bound by them at present — although we cannot subscribe to the reasoning of them, of course it is useless now to consider whether these objections to the verdict are valid or not. However, with respect to costs, it is necessary to say something — there can be no doubt, but in point of Equity, *Mr. Cupples*should pay them — there has been the verdict of a jury against him. and that verdict confirmed by the County Court; upon argument he has caused an abatement of the suit, like that partial abatement which sometimes happens in case of the death, destruction, or ceasing of the principal thing in dispute, so that the court cannot give judgment for it — as where an action is brought against tenant *per autre vie,*and *cestui qui vie*dies, de-mandant, may proceed for damages for detention ; in ejectment for lands leased, if the lease expires before a decision, Plaintiff may proceed for damages and costs.— Here, before the suit is decided, one of the parties puts an end to it by removing out of the court’s power the thing in controversy. The court cannot give judgment upon the merits of the dispute, or for the principal j but *526the party may proceed for the accessary. There was judgment for costs.

Note. — As to the grant’s being unimpeached at law, see *Reynolds*v. *Flinn,*and the note thereto, *ante*106.
#### James Music Company, Respondent, vs. Hankwitz, Appellant.

*November 30*—

December *15, 1908.*

*Chattel mortgages: Legal title after condition brolcen: Trespasser: Right as against unfiled chattel mortgage.*

1. A chattel mortgagee, after condition broken, has tbe legal title to the mortgaged property and the right to the possession thereof.

2. Under sec. 2313, Stats. (1898), providing for the filing of chattel mortgages and the effect of such filing, the owner of an un-filed chattel mortgage can recover the mortgaged property from a mere trespasser.

£3. *It seems*that the provisions of sec. 2313, Stats. (1898), are intended only for the protection of those claiming the mortgaged property by purchase, assignment, or otherwise from the mortgagor in possession, and not for the protection of mere trespassers.]

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Lincoln county: W. C. SilveethobN, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Eor the appellant there was a brief by *Byan &■ Bwrike,*and oral argument by *B. 8. BimTce.*

Eor the respondent there was a brief by *Brown, Pradt, Cenrich & Anderson,*attorneys, and *Edward M. Smart,*of counsel, and oral argument by *F.*W. *Cenrich.*

*303WiNSLow, O. J.

No statement of the facts in this case is ■deemed necessary. But one question is involved which we deem it necessary to consider, viz.: Can the owner of an un-filed chattel mortgage, after condition broken, successfully replevin the mortgaged property from a person who has purchased the same at sheriff’s sale upon an execution issued •on a judgment against one other than the chattel mortgagor? In simpler form, the question is whether such a mortgagee -can replevin the property from a trespasser. This question must be answered in the affirmative. A chattel mortgagee •after condition broken has the legal title to the mortgaged property and the right to the possession thereof. *Klinkert v. Fulton S. & M. Co.*113 Wis. 493, 89 N. W. 507.

It is true that sec. 2313, Stats. (1898), provides that a ■chattel mortgage shall not be valid as “against any other person than the parties thereto,” unless the possession of the property be delivered to and retained by the mortgagee, or the mortgage be filed in the office of the proper town, city, or village clerk, as prescribed in sec. 2314, Stats. (1898). Under this section it is contended that the owner of an un-filed chattel mortgage cannot recover the property from a mere trespasser. This contention, however, must be rej ected under the authority of *Kimball v.*Post, 44 Wis. 471, where it was held that the same language in sec. 2317, Stats. (1898), with reference to conditional sales of personal property, was intended only for the protection of those claiming the property by purchase, assignment, or otherwise from the vendee in possession, and not for the protection of mere trespassers.

Following this decision the judgment must be affirmed.

*By the Gourt.*— It is so ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                    US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                            10,206
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    213,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                      404,366
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 810,812
<PP&E>                                         2,367,085
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,285,248
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   895,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            468,021
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                      11,129,954
<OTHER-SE>                                   (10,702,075)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     895,900
<SALES>                                          370,685
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 370,685
<CGS>                                            318,243
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    318,243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 202,577
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                (150,135)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (150,125)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (150,125)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (150,125)
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (150,125)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.07)


</TABLE>
# HOW TO DO BUSINESS WITH US 

NRO is committed to providing resources, including people and information, to clear potential barriers, build partnerships, and position organizations for success. Here's how to work with NRO:

### REGISTER ON THE ARC

The Acquisition Center of Excellence operates, executes, and maintains the ARC. The ARC enables procurement officials to communicate and monitor the flow of source selected information critical to successful acquisition activities. You can visit the ARC here > https://acq.westfields.net/

----

### SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT REGISTRATION

To access the ARC, your company must be registered on the SAM site. Once you register for SAM and an unclassified ARC account, you will have the ability to apply for a classified ARC account. Here's what you'll need:

          - Your full name and last six digits of your Social Security number
          - Your contact e-mail (classified contact information is optional)
          - Your daytime phone number(s)
          - The DUNS number of your company

----

### BUSINESS RESOURCES

Click here to access the ARC page with links to videos and text tutorials on using NRO's business systems.

----

### Disadvantaged business partnerships

NRO recognizes the value and importance of small business and non-traditional companies' participation in bidding for NRO contracts as a source of innovation, competitive pricing, and customer-focused support. To learn more about our Disadvantaged Business Outreach click here!

----