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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 654 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 654

 Designating July 25, 2020, as ``National Day of the American Cowboy''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 21, 2020

Mr. Enzi (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Tester, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. 
Merkley, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Bennet, and 
Mr. Udall) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating July 25, 2020, as ``National Day of the American Cowboy''.

Whereas pioneering men and women, recognized as ``cowboys'', helped to establish 
        the American West;
Whereas the cowboy embodies honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, respect, a 
        strong work ethic, and patriotism;
Whereas the cowboy spirit exemplifies strength of character, sound family 
        values, and good common sense;
Whereas the cowboy archetype transcends ethnicity, gender, geographic 
        boundaries, and political affiliations;
Whereas the cowboy, who lives off the land and works to protect and enhance the 
        environment, is an excellent steward of the land and its creatures;
Whereas cowboy traditions have been a part of American culture for generations;
Whereas the cowboy continues to be an important part of the economy through the 
        work of many thousands of ranchers across the United States who 
        contribute to the economic well-being of every State;
Whereas millions of fans watch professional and working ranch rodeo events 
        annually, making rodeo one of the most-watched sports in the United 
        States;
Whereas membership and participation in rodeo and other organizations that 
        promote and encompass the livelihood of cowboys span every generation 
        and transcend race and gender;
Whereas the cowboy is a central figure in literature, film, and music and 
        occupies a central place in the public imagination;
Whereas the cowboy is an American icon; and
Whereas the ongoing contributions made by cowboys and cowgirls to their 
        communities should be recognized and encouraged: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates July 25, 2020, as ``National Day of the 
        American Cowboy''; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
IRIS STEP 3 INTERAGENCY COMMENTS

OMB Staff Working Comments on EPA’s Toxicological Review of Urea [dated June , 2010]
and Draft Charge to External Reviewers

June 2 8 , 2010

General Science Comments:

**•** The outcome of EPA’s review is that the data are not sufficient for the development of an RfC, not sufficient for the development of an RfD and inadequate for a determination of carcinogenic potential. It is our understanding that it is now IRIS policy to send all draft IRIS profiles to contractor

- led external peer review panels, or more robust peer review

mechanisms for review.

o It is unclear to us why EPA would allocate appropriated funds for even a contractor

led external peer review panel for the rev iew of a document that essentially makes findings of inadequate data. To save resources (as well as staff and interagency reviewers time), perhaps getting agreemen t from EPA internal reviewers c ould be

sufficient for such a determination. If EPA felt some type of external review was needed, perhaps EPA could easily reach out to some members of the BOSC to get

their endorsement of the findings . This could be done through a quick letter review, rather than paying contractors and other external reviewers for p articipation in a public meeting.

o To inform future determinations such as this one, it would be most helpful to the public, internal agency reviewers, interagency reviewers, and expert reviewers, if EPA could provide basic criteria describing the minimum data set that would be needed for RfD/RfC and cancer quantification. The development of such criteria should ideally include opportunity for public input and comment. If EPA could put together even a rough sketch of what this would look like, if EPA contin ues forward with the review of urea, EPA could use the opportunity to get public, interagency and expert input regarding these criteria. These criteria could then be applied in the future and might streamline the resources and staff efforts put towards cr eating a

t oxicological review which makes only a finding of insufficient data.

o If EPA w ere to spend the resources to em panel experts, EPA should at least consider asking the experts what future studies should be undertaken to address the data gaps.
#### Stanwood A. DEMERS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Edwin C. BROWN et al., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 6456.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

April 9, 1965.

Stanwood A. Demers, pro se.

Joseph L. Breen, Chief Special Counsel, with whom J. Joseph Nugent, Atty. Gen. of Rhode Island, was on brief, for appellees.

Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, and MARIS * and BURGER,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

This case, in which plaintiff sought to enjoin certain action by the Rhode Island State Board of Education, was dismissed on defendants’ motion on the ground that the complaint stated no cause of action. Final judgment was entered October 13, 1964. Having failed to appeal from that judgment, in December the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate. Concededly he had had more than 30 days’ notice of the judgment. When the motion to vacate came on for hearing the court stated that it was without power to grant it. This was so since there were no new reasons to set aside the judgment. F.R.Civ.P. 60(b). From *428an order denying the motion, plaintiff appeals.

It must be perfectly apparent that plaintiff is seeking to appeal from the original judgment by indirection after the time has expired. What he cannot do directly he cannot do indirectly. Perrin v. Aluminum Co. of America, 9 Cir. 1952, 197 F.2d 254.

Plaintiff filed an additional motion requesting a hearing by a three-judge court of his original complaint. The district court expressly stated that it was not passing on this motion, and in fact, no order appears to have been made. If it could be assumed that the district court also denied this so-called alternate motion, and that the plaintiff took a valid appeal therefrom, nevertheless there could be no merit to the appeal because this motion, again, specifically sought to open a complaint that had been finally disposed of.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1151

JOHN EDMOND; PAMELA LYLES,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

JUDY NIGH; SNOWDEN CHASE REALTY; EDWARD J.

MAHER; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND;

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE;

UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS 1 and 2; STATE OF

MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(8:05-cv-02750-DKC)

Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 26, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Edmond, Pamela Lyles, Appellants Pro Se. Juliane Corroon

Miller, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, Alexandria, Virginia; William Leonard

Mitchell, II, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Washington, D.C.; Rajeshanand

Kumar, PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Upper Marlboro,

Maryland; Cynthia G. Peltzman, Assistant Attorney General,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John Edmond and Pamela Lyles appeal the district court’s

order dismissing their civil action arising out of their eviction

from an apartment in Laurel, Maryland. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Edmond v. Nigh, No. 8:05-cv02750-DKC (D. Md. Jan. 8, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

Asia Countries Co. W.L.L. 

Under Contract No. 000000-00-0-0000 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ASBCA No. 59947 

No Appearance Entered 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Daniel K. Poling, Esq. 

DLA Chief Trial Attorney 

Robin E. Walters, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

DLA Disposition Services 

Battle Creek, MI 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

By email dated 18 April 2015, appellant filed a notice of appeal which the Board 

docketed as ASBCA No. 59947. The email was sent from "acc@asiacountries.net" and 

closed with "WITH BEST REGARDS[,] Asia Countries Co W.L.L .... " No person was 

identified in the email. In its 22 April 2015 docketing notice, the Board directed 

appellant to show that it is represented in this appeal by a person meeting the 

requirements of Board Rule 15 or designate a person meeting those requirements by 

8 May 2015. The Board received no response from appellant. On 28 May 2015, the 

Board issued an Order directing appellant to respond by 17 June 2015 and 

communicating the Board's intention to dismiss the appeal if no response was received 

by that date. No response has been received by the Board to date. 

Without a representative meeting the requirements of Board Rule 15, the Board is 

unable to proceed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

Dated: 26 June 2015 

(Signatures continued) 

"' Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I concur 

MARK A. MELNICK 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59947, Appeal of Asia Countries Co. 

W.L.L., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 76 

Designating March 1, 2019, as ‘‘National Speech and Debate Education 

Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2019 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. COONS, Ms. WARREN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. 

DURBIN, and Ms. ERNST) submitted the following resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating March 1, 2019, as ‘‘National Speech and Debate 

Education Day’’. 

Whereas it is essential for youth to learn and practice the art 

of communicating with and without technology; 

Whereas speech and debate education offers students myriad 

forms of public speaking through which students may develop talent and exercise unique voice and character; 

Whereas speech and debate education gives students the 

21st-century skills of communication, critical thinking, 

creativity, and collaboration; 

Whereas critical analysis and effective communication allow 

important ideas, texts, and philosophies the opportunity 

to flourish; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 76 ATS 

Whereas personal, professional, and civic interactions are enhanced by the ability of the participants in those interactions to listen, concur, question, and dissent with reason and compassion; 

Whereas students who participate in speech and debate have 

chosen a challenging activity that requires regular practice, dedication, and hard work; 

Whereas teachers and coaches of speech and debate devote 

in-school, afterschool, and weekend hours to equip students with life-changing skills and opportunities; 

Whereas National Speech and Debate Education Day emphasizes the lifelong impact of providing people of the United 

States with the confidence and preparation to both discern and share views; 

Whereas National Speech and Debate Education Day acknowledges that most achievements, celebrations, commemorations, and pivotal moments in modern history 

begin, end, or are crystallized with public address; 

Whereas National Speech and Debate Education Day recognizes that learning to research, construct, and present an 

argument is integral to personal advocacy, social movements, and the making of public policy; 

Whereas the National Speech & Debate Association, in conjunction with national and local partners, honors and 

celebrates the importance of speech and debate through 

National Speech and Debate Education Day; and 

Whereas National Speech and Debate Education Day emphasizes the importance of speech and debate education and 

the integration of speech and debate education across 

grade levels and disciplines: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 76 ATS 

1 (1) designates March 1, 2019, as ‘‘National 

2 Speech and Debate Education Day’’; 

3 (2) strongly affirms the purposes of National 

4 Speech and Debate Education Day; and 

5 (3) encourages educational institutions, busi6 nesses, community and civic associations, and all 

7 people of the United States to celebrate and promote 

8 National Speech and Debate Education Day. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0581 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CATHERINE MARIE RYMAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 28, 202 3 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 17 2023

03/17/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0581
EXHIBIT 23.2


                 NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


We  have  not been able to obtain, after reasonable efforts, the reissued report
or  consent  of  Arthur  Andersen  LLP  related  to  the 2001 and 2000 financial
statements  included in this report on Form 10-K.  Therefore, we have included a
copy of their previously issued report.

Because  we  have  been  unable to obtain the above-referenced consent of Arthur
Andersen  LLP, we are required to disclose any resulting limitations on recovery
by  investors. Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 allows, under certain
circumstances,  a  person  acquiring a security to assert a claim against, among
others,  an  accountant  who  has  consented  to be named as having prepared any
report  for  use  in  connection  with  the  registration statement if part of a
registration  statement  at  the  time  it  becomes effective contains an untrue
statement  of  a  material fact or omits to state a material fact required to be
stated  therein  or  necessary  to  make  the statements therein not misleading.
Because  Arthur Andersen LLP has not consented to being named in this Form 10-K,
it  will  not be liable under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue
statements  or  omissions of material fact contained in the financial statements
audited by Arthur Andersen LLP.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          37,534
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  373,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,646
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               478,861
<PP&E>                                         299,748
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,756
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,502,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          243,700
<BONDS>                                        335,086
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       641,219
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,502,010
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               802,297
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  712,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 66,982
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,929
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,053
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,053
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                              NAME UNDER
                           WHICH SUBSIDIARY   JURISDICTION OF                   PERCENTAGE
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY          DOES BUSINESS     INCORPORATION        OWNER           OWNED
------------------         ----------------   ---------------      -----        ----------
<S>                        <C>                <C>                <C>            <C>
Nordata, Inc.                    Eltrax        California          Eltrax           100%
                                                                Systems, Inc.

Rudata, Inc.                     None          California          Eltrax           100%
                                                                Systems, Inc.

Atlantic Network                 Eltrax        North Carolina      Eltrax           100%
Systems, Inc.                                                   Systems, Inc.

EJG Techline Incorporated        Eltrax        California          Eltrax           100%
                                                                Systems, Inc.

Four Corners                     Eltrax        Arizona             Eltrax           100%
Technology, Inc.                                                Systems, Inc.

Hi-Tech                          Eltrax        Pennsylvania        Eltrax           100%
Connections, Inc.                                               Systems, Inc.

DataComm                         Eltrax        Ohio                Eltrax           100%
Associates, Inc.                                                Systems, Inc.

Midwest Telecom                  Eltrax        Ohio                Eltrax           100%
Associates, Inc.                                                Systems, Inc.

</TABLE>


Note:  All subsidiaries with the exception of Nordata, Inc. and Four Corners 
       Technology, Inc. were merged into Eltrax Systems, Inc. on January 1, 
       1998.
#### ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION *v.*Carlton A. SMITH et ux

74-260

519 S.W. 2d 64

Opinion delivered February 17, 1975

*Thomas B. Keys*and *Philip N. Gowen,*for appellant.

*Douglas Bradley*and *Jon R.*Coleman, for appellees.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

In this condemnation case the Highway Commission appeals from a verdict and judgment fixing the landowners’ compensation at $4,000. The testimony of the landowners’ expert witness, a professional appraiser with 44 years’ experience, amply supports the verdict. Nor was there any error in the court’s refusal to strike the “before” value testimony of Carlton A. Smith, one of the owners. He had lived in the community for 27 years and had watched the sales of land in the area through the years. He valued his farm at $2,000 an acre and stated on cross-examination, without objection, that he had been offered that amount for his land. Such an offer, like hearsay, is not admissible as proof of value, but we have held that hearsay testimony, if not objected to, may support a verdict. *Ark. State Highway Commn.*v. Bradford, 252 Ark. 1037, 482 S.W. 2d 107 (1972). An offer falls in the same category. It was not shown that the offer in question was not an adequate basis for Smith’s opinion.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 22
  
  
  
  Subsidiaries of Raytech Corporation               Incorporated
  
  AFM Management Company                              Michigan
  44650 Merrill Road
  Sterling Heights, MI 48314                          
  
  Allomatic Products Company                          Delaware
  609 E. Chaney    
  Sullivan, IN 47882
  
  Automotive Composites Company                       Delaware
  44650 Merrill Road
  Sterling Heights, MI 48314
  
  Raybestos Aftermarket Products Company              Delaware
  964 East Market Street
  Crawfordsville, IN 47933            
  
  Raybestos Friction Products (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.      China
  Xiang Yang Road
  215011 Suzhou, China
  
  Raybestos Industrie-Produkte GmbH                   Germany
  Industriestrasse, 7
  D-54497 Morbach, Germany  
  
  Raybestos Products Company                          Delaware
  1204 Darlington Avenue
  Crawfordsville, IN 47933
  
  Raybestos Reibtechnik GmbH                          Germany
  Quettingerstrasse, 220
  D-51381 Leverkusen 3, Germany
  
  Raybestos U.K. Ltd.                                 England
  16, Spindus Road
  Speke
  Liverpool L24 1YA, England
  
  Raytech Composites Europe GmbH                      Germany
  Bahnstrasse 48-50
  5608 Radevormwald, Germany
  
  Raytech Composites, Inc.                            Delaware
  Suite 512, One Corporate Drive
  Shelton, CT 06484
  
  Raytech Europe, Inc.                                Delaware
  Suite 512, One Corporate Drive
  Shelton, CT 06484
  
  Raytech Powertrain, Inc.                            Delaware
  Suite 512, One Corporate Drive
  Shelton, CT 06484