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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2017 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2017

   To increase the period of time during which an individual who has 
  submitted a claim for benefits under chapter 81 of title 5, United 
   States Code, may supply supporting documentation to the Office of 
  Workers' Compensation Programs of the Department of Labor, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 10, 2021

  Mr. Schatz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To increase the period of time during which an individual who has 
  submitted a claim for benefits under chapter 81 of title 5, United 
   States Code, may supply supporting documentation to the Office of 
  Workers' Compensation Programs of the Department of Labor, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Kenneth Meisel Public Servants' 
Claimant Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN TIME PERIOD FOR FECA CLAIMANT TO SUBMIT SUPPORTING 
              EVIDENCE TO OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS.

    Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Labor shall--
            (1) amend the second sentence of section 10.121 of title 
        20, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation, 
        by striking ``30 days'' and inserting ``60 days''; and
            (2) modify the Procedure Manual of the Division of Federal 
        Employees' Compensation of the Office of Workers' Compensation 
        Programs of the Department of Labor to reflect the change made 
        by the Secretary under paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains interim summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets and Statement of Operations of E-Commerce West Corp.
for the quarter ended April 2000, which statements have been compiled by
management.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                          83,822
<SECURITIES>                                    36,675
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,170
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               278,587
<PP&E>                                         104,464
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 342,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          620,880
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,100
<COMMON>                                        16,332
<OTHER-SE>                                   (295,695)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (278,263)
<SALES>                                          3,859
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,859
<CGS>                                            1,587
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,587
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               151,082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,010
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (175,961)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (175,961)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (174,961)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated December 27, 1999 of our audit of the Consolidated Financial
Statements of SatCon Technology Corporation and its subsidiaries as of September
30, 1999 and for the year then ended, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statement
on Form S-8 (File No.'s 333-75934, 33-4280, 333-08047 and 333-75339) and
Form S-3 (File No.'s 333-05939, 333-37921 and 333-87157).


                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
December 27, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTER
ENDING MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             285
<SECURITIES>                                        27
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (452)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,155
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,482
<PP&E>                                          14,773
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,191)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,357
<BONDS>                                          5,479
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,348
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,846
<SALES>                                          6,138
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,244
<CGS>                                            4,781
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,046
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   452
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 222
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     49
<INCOME-TAX>                                        13
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 37
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        37
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004084EN.01009801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/98 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/98

---

(2004/C 84 E/0129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3782/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the city of Livorno under the action programme to promote civil protection

Subject:

In reply to my earlier question E-1093/03 (1) asking whether the city of Livorno had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

1

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

1

---
Casie Walker

Burnet County District Clerk

1701 East Polk Street, Suite 90

Burnet, Texas 78611-2757

Phone (512) 756-5450

February 19, 2015

Third Court of Appeals

via email

Re: Court of Appeals Number: 03-14-00482-CR

Trail Court Number: 9552

Style: JUSTIN BAKER HAILE

v.

The State of Texas 

Per TRAP 51.2(a)(1), this letter is to inform you we received the mandate in the above 

referenced case on January 29, 2015. 

Sincerely,

Casie Walker

District Clerk
### The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Ap **peals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 1, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00100

- CR

Brandon MASTER

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2010CR4791W The Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Pre siding

ORDER

Appellant’s court

- appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 368 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel has informed the appellant of his right to file his own brief and provided appellant with a form motion for requesting the appellate record. See Kelly v. State

, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);
Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Te x. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. A pp.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). The State has filed a letter waiving its right to file an appellee’s brief unless the appellant files a pro se brief.

If the appellant des ires to request the appellate record, he must file the motion requesting the record within ten days from the date of this order. If the appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he
must do so within t hirty days from the date of this order. See Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. If the appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after the date the appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. It is further ORDERED that the motion to withdraw, filed by app ellant’s counsel, is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court

on this 1st day of July, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Virginia One Development, INC, Avery Park Partners, 

LLC d/b/a A very Park, DSH Diplomat, LLC d/b/a 

Diplomat Townbomes, Colony Creek, LLC, and 

Crossings Townbomes, LLC, 

Complainants/ Appellant 

v. 

Tbe City of Atlanta, Georgia, 

Respondent 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

FAA Docket 16-12-09 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Final Agency Decision will be issued in this matter is hereby extended 

to on or about April 16, 2016. 

Associate 

F4 Administrator 

&fP for Airports 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

& rJIY" 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on :-1 'P(r\J () , I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time, 

addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant 

Steven M. Taber 

Taber Law Group, P.C. 

1 League, #60036 

Irvine, CA 92602-0036 

staber@taberlaw .com 

Counsel for Respondent 

Eric N. Heyer 

THOMPSON HINE LLP 

1919 M Street N.W., Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20036 

Eric.Heyer@thompsonhine.com 

John L. Watkins 

Roy E. Hadley, Jr. 

THOMPSON HINE LLP 

Two Alliance Center 

3560 Lenox Road, Suite 1600 

Atlanta, GA 30326-2905 

John. Watkins@thompsonhine.com 

Roy.Hadley@thompsonhine.com 

Hand Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

FAA Eastern Region, AEA-600 

Claudia Roberts 

Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E DWI N F . L ARA, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74389 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 475- 408 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E dw i n F . L ar a, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f G uat em al a, pet i t i on s pro se for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea lfr om an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n f o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence 

# FI LED SEP 27 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74389 2 the a ge nc y ’ s c ont i nuous phy s i c a lpr e s e nc e de t e rm i na t i on, Can ales -V arga s v . G on zales , 4 4 1 F . 3 d7 3 9 , 7 4 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) , an dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he r e c or d doe s notc om pe lthe c onc l us i on tha tL ar am e thi s bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng c ont i nuous phy s i c a lpr e s e nc e w he r e he f a i l e d t o pr ovi de s uf

f i c i e nt e v id e n c e s up p o rtin g h is p r e s e n c e f r o m M ar c h 1 9 9 5 to M ar c h 2 0 0 5 . Se e Si nghKa u rv . I NS , 183 F . 3d 1147, 1150 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( ac ontr aryr e s ul ti s not c om pe l l e d w he r e the r e i s “ [ t ] he pos s i bi l i tyof dr aw i ng tw o i nc ons i s t e ntc onc l us i ons fr om the evi dence”) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
----

(2004/C 78 E/1004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0300/04

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Financing for the new Athens airport

By decision E (96) 1356 of 23 May 1996 the Commission granted the company AIA SA funding of EUR 250 million to build the new Athens airport at Spata.

The company subsequently (on 14 June 1996) signed a contract for the airport project with Hochtief AG, formerly called Gebr. Helfmann of Essen (Germany), for a sum of EUR 1,8 billion. In its turn this company set up a branch in Athens which is not entered on the register of limited companies. Hochtief has concluded a whole series of contracts with other firms in order to sub-contract the construction work.

Hochtief has a 45 % share in AIA SA, the Greek State 55 %, although Hochtief controls the board of directors with 5 out of 9 directors. The Commission's decision E (96) 1356 named AIA SA as the entity responsible for carrying out the project. According to Article 12.2.6. of Greek Law No 2338/95, AIA SA cannot be considered as a body governed by public law, and Article 10 of Regulation No 1164/94 (1) states that funding may be granted only to bodies governed by public law.

Spat airport has also set extremely high airport taxes, because of its dominant position in air traffic to and from Greece. This prompted a number of passengers to lodge complaints with the Commission in July 2002.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

----

(1)OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1.

----
POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each of Robert K. Kretzman and Michael T. Sheehan or any of them, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the REVLON, INC. (the Corporation) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Form 10-K) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments thereto,
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents 4th day of March, 2008.



/S/ PAUL J. BOHANPAUL J. BOHAN






---
REF ID:A415Bifjj4 .... 

Mt-~ .Al.~mr ~ ~ lo~ .J~" 

tell Tt._l*- 1a..,.,'81'1M, l.M .. 

~P.l~tll~ 

.._.,...,. nu,_ •v 3-~ 

t4arMr. ~· 

Oll J.~ ~ J.95~ .. la ......... ~-- l.lAW\w\ 

O..t1U. Cabt•,. lUr_... d tn. JI01--1 '"'"" ~1- -' •· Jona c .. .,,_..., ~ • • ma. .. 1.-ut..o 

ltkflitl(ft'¥ ..... I ti 'dU ....... ..,, ,, ._a W MVi•i4· "° • .,. • 1*1tt1ng di 'ha :eca.nt. ~· •il'inl w 4i.a0t.lllt ... or ~w .,_~ ~1.,.. vh\ah 0.11111'a.t taus.. 1'UbH w 

p:iaoe woi-.e ._,,. ~+ 

1bll 41.'9• 6 aol 1 Apf't..t an· OGU1a"* -~ *11~ 

tor the wtlal, ~~.lU& 'tbe -~ a April 0 ... t• •. ,. ..... vbe GU #pare tiat W ·~\ .111ii1•u.J.q Wi1'l\ Jttlt•C1 

~~l,, 

I ho~¥*' ~dlJ, t.tnl f<MU'Mll 11& ,.aU.iOD to•\~ 

t.he ~· -"i\W .... "'""11 ¥PIA :"Mei" flt att.U.U,._ 

w ... ~141tl, x vtJ.1 i.w ""CIWll o1 t:. a a.cutr.v tor eo..i ... • (-..C) _. ..,......,. at,.,.. ... ._ ._. -. ...... ~~ lt,.... --..,. _...,... ..... ., ....... ~ 

\J'aftl ........ ~ JNV~ ... u,. .... 'W ,.. - ... CbW llAJC, plMMe la\ - .... 

cc: 

AG 

a/s 

S/A 

1"WtC (Mr. Wisdoa) 

K/R: Self Explanatory 

ursuantto E .0. 1352
Exhibit
32





Certification
Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





(18
U.S.C. 1350)








Persuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) the
undersigned Managing General Partner of Detonics Small Arms Limited, a
Washington limited partnership (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best
of such General Partner's knowledge and belief, that:





1. The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the "Form
10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/MICHEL
E. MAES


Michel E.
Maes


Managing
General Partner


Date:
4-28-08
• ' ~ I I 

.. 

• REF ID:A68908. 

·42'4 Worth George val0n Driw, 

\ Arlington S • Virginia, -

16 l~r 1960. 

. . 

_. I was sorry to !Jan miese~ the· farewell'. pa.rqr for you on - .. the last ~ of ·your servioe with our group. As )''>U may tnow, 

I as at Maxwell Field in Georgia that day and wa1 umLble to 

be 'present- and c1 w you in per•0J1 11\Y greeting• and very be1t 

·wiabea. · · 

Now that you have retired~ I-hOpe that you will -find a 

1teady improvement in your eye~ight, a thing which rest an~ . quiet may well bring. I 1hould- like you to know·that your long. 

ai1d tai t~l service in the Government baa been appreciated b;y 

. th~ae with whom you bave wo~ked,, and by me. . . ·. 

-· Jrfra. Friedman joina me ·in extending to yo\l our beat wishes 

.for a .long and happy retirement, and ror your oonti:aued health · and "811 being. · 

-.:"lfi th· moat ~ ordia.l greetinga 1 I aa, 

. ' 

Mias Nettie Jana•en., 

c/o B. B. Janaaen.. . . 1681 a 6th' AvallUlt, South, . 

st. Peter:aburg, F.londa. 

'' ... 

Slnoerely your1, 

@'pproved for Release by N~A on 07-16-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APP EAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED ZBIG WOJCIECHOWSKI,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D14-156

NICOLE CLARK,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed March 24, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, C. Jeffery Arnold, Judge.

Elizabeth Siano Harris, of Law Offices of E.S. Harris, P.A., Titusville, for Appellant.

James M. Campbell, of The Orlando Family Firm, Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA and WALLIS, JJ., concur. BERGER, J., concurs specially with opinion.BERGER, J., concurring specially. 5D14-156

The overwhelming evidence in thi s child custody case establishe s that the child's

mother is, at the very least, a drug addict, 1 which is why I could not disagree more with

the trial court’s decision to gr ant her majority time-sharing. Nevertheless, my

disagreement does not warrant reversal.

Trial courts are afforded broad discretion in child custody cas es. See

Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 114 So. 3d 984, 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing Miller

v. Miller, 842 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)). As such, we apply a

“reasonableness” test to determine whether the trial judge abus ed his discretion.

Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980). Und er this test, “[i]f

reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action t aken by the trial court, then

the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of a n abuse of discretion.” Id.

Because I cannot conclude that no reasonable man would have tak en the view of the trial

court, I am compelled to concur with the majority decision to a ffirm.

1 The evidence established that the child's mother had been cons uming narcotic prescription medication for years, that she was being prescribe d a large number of narcotics by several doctors at the same time, and that the tot al number of narcotic pills she received from various doctors in a given month totaled “in the hundreds.” The evidence also established that she consumed, or otherwise dispo sed of, a total of 268 narcotic pills between January 19, 2012, and January 27, 2012. In my view, this evidence belies the trial court’s conclusion, in paragraph q of the Fina l Judgment, that the mother had the capacity and disposition to maintain an environment for the child that is free from substance abuse.