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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7079 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 

finalizing, implementing, or enforcing certain changes to regulations regarding meat and poultry products effluent discharges, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2024 

Mr. BURLISON (for himself, Mr. ESTES, Mr. OGLES, and Mr. EDWARDS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing 

certain changes to regulations regarding meat and poultry products effluent discharges, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Banning EPA’s En5 croachment on Facilities Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7079 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS POINT SOURCE 

2 CATEGORY. 

3 The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

4 Agency may not finalize, implement, or enforce the pro5 posed rule entitled ‘‘Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations 

6 Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Prod7 ucts Point Source Category’’ signed by the Administrator 

8 of the Environmental Protection Agency on December 13, 

9 2023, or any substantially similar rule. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 28, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute—Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium-Americas (“RIC-Americas”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Lemurian Labs Inc., Ontario, CANADA, has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and RIC-Americas intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 30, 2014, RIC-Americas filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 32999).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 29, 2021. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 26, 2021 (86 FR 67493).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-05111 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-appellee v. Steve McGary CARROLL, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50054 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 11, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Steve McGary Carroll, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Steve McGary Carroll, federal prisoner # 25236-056, seeks leave to proceed in *304forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, By moving to proceed IFP, Carroll is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into a litigant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Supreme Court has prescribed a two-step inquiry for a district court that is considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion. *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The court must first determine whether a prisoner is eligible for a reduction as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. *Id.*If he is eligible, then the district court must “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion,” any reduction is warranted under the particular facts of the case. *Id.*at 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683.

The district court properly concluded that Carroll was ineligible for a reduction because he was sentenced pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, which stipulated a particular sentence without reference to the Guidelines, *See United States v. Benitez,*822 F.3d 807, 811-12 (5th Cir. 2016). As Carroll was not sentenced under a Guideline lowered by Amendment 782, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motion.

Thus, Carroll has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. *See Howard,*707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his IFP motion is DENIED. Because his appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

**Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *304the limited circumstances set forth in 55th Cm, R. 47.5,4,
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0873 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0873

**2001/873/EC: Commission Decision of 4 December 2001 correcting Directive 2001/22/EC laying down the sampling methods and the methods of analysis for the official control of the levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and 3-MCPD in foodstuffs (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 3913) **

*
Official Journal L 325 , 08/12/2001 P. 0034 - 0034 *

Commission Decision

of 4 December 2001

correcting Directive 2001/22/EC laying down the sampling methods and the methods of analysis for the official control of the levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and 3-MCPD in foodstuffs

(notified under document number C(2001) 3913)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2001/873/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 85/591/EEC of 20 December 1985 concerning the introduction of Community methods of sampling and analysis for the monitoring of foodstuffs intended for human consumption(1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Directive 2001/22/EC of 8 March 2001 laying down the sampling methods and the methods of analysis for the official control of the levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and 3-MCPD in foodstuffs(2) establishes and harmonises the technical measures for the sampling and analysis methods to be used for the monitoring of the concerned contaminants.

(2) In the text published in the Official Journal of the European Communities a material error occurred in the date for the bringing into force of the laws, regulations or administrative provisions by Member States in order to comply with the above directive.

(3) It is necessary to correct Directive 2001/22/EC accordingly.

(4) The measures provided in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Foodstuffs,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2001/22/EC "5 April 2003" is replaced by "5 April 2002".

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 December 2001.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 372, 31.12.1985, p. 50.

(2) OJ L 77, 16.3.2001, p. 14.
#### BURROUGHS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Werner H. KRAMARSKY, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17, Docket 80-7127.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Sept. 25, 1980.

Decided May 11, 1981.

Ann Thacher Anderson, Gen. Counsel, State Div. of Human Rights, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

William E. McKnight, Rochester, N. Y. (Robb M. Jones, Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, Rochester, N. Y., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MOORE and KEARSE, Circuit Judges, and TENNEY, District Judge.*

*

 Honorable Charles H. Tenney, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

KEARSE, Circuit Judge:

This is one of three unconsolidated cases argued together on appeal. Also argued were *Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Kramarsky,*650 F.2d 1287 (2 Cir.) *(“Delta”)*and *Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Kramarsky,*650 F.2d 1309 (2 Cir.). The plaintiff here is an employer which maintains an employee benefit plan that is subject to federal regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001*et seq.*(1976). Plaintiff is also subject to New York’s Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 (McKinney 1972 & Supp. 1980-1981) (“HRL”). HRL requires that disability benefit plans such as plaintiff’s provide benefits for disabilities related to pregnancy on the same basis as for other disabilities. Plaintiff’s plan excludes disabilities related to pregnancy.

*1309Plaintiff commenced the present action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the HRL on the ground that § 514(a) of ERISA provides that ERISA preempts laws such as the HRL. Plaintiff also sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that defendant had persistently denied it an opportunity to be heard on its ERISA argument, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Relying on *Pervel Industries, Inc. v. Connecticut Comm’n on Human Rights & Opportunities,*468 F.Supp. 490 (D.Conn.1978), *aff’d mem.,*603 F.2d 214 (2d Cir. 1979), *cert. denied,*444 U.S. 1031, 100 S.Ct. 701, 62 L.Ed.2d 667 (1980), in which this Court affirmed by summary order a ruling that ERISA § 514(a) preempted a Connecticut statute similar to the HRL, the district court enjoined enforcement of the HRL with respect to plaintiff’s employee benefit plans. The court did not reach plaintiff’s claim under § 1983.

For the reasons discussed in our decision today in *Delta,*plaintiff’s claim that ERISA preempts the HRL is untenable in light of the Supreme Court’s action in *Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Minnesota,*444 U.S. 1041, 100 S.Ct. 725, 62 L.Ed.2d 726 (1980). We therefore reverse the injunction of the district court. Since the court did not rule on the § 1983 claim, we remand for whatever further consideration plaintiff may seek.

Reversed and remanded.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 723

Entitled the ‘‘Badger-Two Medicine Protection Act’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 25 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Mr. BAUCUS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

Entitled the ‘‘Badger-Two Medicine Protection Act’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. BADGER-TWO MEDICINE AREA.

4 (a)(1) Subject to valid existing rights, all federally

5 owned lands as depicted on a map entitled ‘‘Badger-Two

6 Medicine Area’’, dated September 1991, comprising ap7 proximately one hundred sixteen thousand six hundred

8 acres, are withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropria9 tion, and disposal under the mining and public land laws

10 and from disposition under the geothermal and mineral

11 leasing laws. Until otherwise directed by Congress, the
2

S 723 IS

1 Secretary shall manage this area so as to protect its cur2 rently existing wilderness qualities.

3 (2) Nothing in this section shall preclude the gather4 ing of timber by the Blackfeet Tribe in exercise of valid

5 treaty rights within the Badger-Two Medicine Area.

6 (3)(A) With respect to oil and gas leases on Federal

7 lands within the Badger-Two Medicine Area, no surface

8 disturbance shall be permitted pursuant to such leases

9 until Congress determines otherwise.

10 (B) Notwithstanding any other law, the term of any

11 oil and gas lease subject to the limitations imposed by this

12 section shall be extended for a period of time equal to the

13 term that such limitation remains in effect.

14 (b) The Secretary shall conduct a review of this area

15 in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the

16 following provisions. Within five years of the date of enact17 ment of this Act, the Secretary shall report his findings

18 to Congress. In conducting this review:

19 (1) The Secretary shall establish a committee

20 composed of representatives of the Blackfeet Tribal

21 Business Council, the Pikuni Traditionalist Associa22 tion, the National Park Service, and representatives

23 of the user public including environmental groups

24 and representatives of user industry groups. The

25 committee shall regularly advise the Secretary of the
3

S 723 IS

1 development of the report and submit its findings to

2 Congress along with those of the Secretary.

3 (2) Special consideration shall be given to the

4 religious, wilderness and wildlife uses of the area,

5 taking into account any treaties the United States

6 has entered into with the Blackfeet Nation.

7 (3) In consultation with the Committee, the

8 Secretary shall establish a process to provide infor9 mation to the Tribe and interested public about op10 tions for future designation of the Badger-Two Med11 icine Area.

Æ
|    |                                                                                                                         |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of TravelCenters of America LLC; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |
| Date: May 17, 2017 | /s/ ANDREW J. REBHOLZ |
|                    | Andrew J. Rebholz |
|                    | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-12-0000521 

22-OCT-2013 

02:47 PM 

SCWC-12-0000521
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

IN THE INTEREST OF TM
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(CAAP-12-0000521; FC-S NO. 10-002K)
 

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
 

The Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on
 

September 12, 2013 by Petitioner/Mother-Appellant Alexandra
 

Rigaud is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral
 

argument. The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk
 

regarding scheduling.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 22, 2013. 

Benjamin E. Lowenthal,

for petitioner

 /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

 /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

 /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna


 /s/ Richard W. Pollack
 

Mary Anne Magnier, 

Nolan Chock,

for respondent
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0789 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0789

**2002/789/EC: Commission Decision of 10 October 2002 amending Decision 2001/751/EC as regards imports of live ratites and hatching eggs from Botswana (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 3671) **

*
Official Journal L 274 , 11/10/2002 P. 0036 - 0037 *

Commission Decision

of 10 October 2002

amending Decision 2001/751/EC as regards imports of live ratites and hatching eggs from Botswana

(notified under document number C(2002) 3671)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/789/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/539/EEC of 15 October 1990 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of poultry and hatching eggs(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 2001/867/EC(2), and in particular Article 21(1) and Article 23(1)b thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2001/751/EC(3) lays down the animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of live ratites and hatching eggs from third countries including animal health measures to be applied after such importation, and lists the third countries from where such imports may be authorised.

(2) An inspection carried out by the Commission in Botswana in May 2001 has shown that sufficiently well-structured and organised veterinary services are in place in Botswana regarding the animal health status for ratites. However, the legislation in Botswana did not fully include the requirement for official notification of avian influenza.

(3) Botswana has now amended its legislation to ensure that avian influenza is to be notified to the competent authority.

(4) It is therefore appropriate to permit importation of live ratites and hatching eggs from Botswana.

(5) Decision 2001/751/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex I to Decision 2001/751/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 18 October 2002.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 October 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 303, 31.10.1990, p. 6.

(2) OJ L 323, 7.12.2001, p. 29.

(3) OJ L 281, 25.10.2001, p. 24.

ANNEX

"ANNEX I

List of third countries or parts of third countries, which are allowed to export live ratites or hatching eggs thereof to the Community

>TABLE>"
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 23, 2009

s1116 

# Order

November 23, 2009

138893

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138893 COA: 290491 Ottawa CC: 93-017028-FC JOHN WILLIAM BIEGAJSKI, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 24, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6719 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6719

  To provide for the conveyance of certain land, Dillard Road, Patoka 
    Lake, Indiana, to the State of Indiana, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2023

 Mr. Bucshon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the conveyance of certain land, Dillard Road, Patoka 
    Lake, Indiana, to the State of Indiana, 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. DISPOSITION OF DILLARD ROAD, PATOKA LAKE, INDIANA.

    (a) Disposition.--The Secretary of the Army (referred to in this 
section as the ``Secretary'') shall convey to the State of Indiana, all 
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to road 
easements associated with Dillard Road, totaling approximately 11.85 
acres, located in Patoka Township, Crawford County, Indiana, including 
any improvements on the land.
    (b) Quitclaim Deed.--A conveyance under this section shall be by 
quitclaim deed and without consideration.
    (c) Administrative Costs.--The Secretary shall be responsible for 
all administrative costs associated with a conveyance under this 
section.
    (d) Terms and Conditions.--A conveyance under this section shall be 
subject to such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary 
determines to be necessary to protect the interests of the United 
States.
    (e) Liability.--A conveyance under this section shall require the 
State of Indiana to hold the United States harmless from any and all 
liability with respect to activities carried out on the land described 
in subsection (a) on or after the date of the conveyance.
    (f) Application of Property Screening Provisions.--Section 2696 of 
title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to a conveyance under 
this section.
    (g) Disposal.--If the State of Indiana does not accept conveyance 
of the land described in subsection (a), the Secretary may dispose of 
the land in accordance with subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 40, 
United States Code.
                                 <all>
```