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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 666 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 666

           To adapt to changing crude oil market conditions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2015

Mr. Barton (for himself, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. 
  Chabot, Mr. Bridenstine, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. 
Salmon, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. Flores, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Carter of Texas, 
 and Mr. Cramer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 
 on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To adapt to changing crude oil market conditions.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) the United States has enjoyed a renaissance in energy 
        production, establishing the United States as the world's 
        leading oil producer;
            (2) the United States upholds a commitment to free trade 
        and open markets and has consistently opposed attempts by other 
        nations to restrict the free flow of energy; and
            (3) the United States should remove all restrictions on the 
        export of crude oil, which will provide domestic economic 
        benefits, enhanced energy security, and flexibility in foreign 
        diplomacy.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Section 103 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6212) and the item relating thereto in the table of contents of that 
Act are repealed.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL POLICY ON OIL EXPORT RESTRICTION.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to promote the 
efficient exploration, production, storage, supply, marketing, pricing, 
and regulation of energy resources, including fossil fuels, no official 
of the Federal Government shall impose or enforce any restriction on 
the export of crude oil.

SEC. 4. STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

    Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Energy shall conduct a study and transmit to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate 
recommendations on the appropriate size, composition, and purpose of 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT


TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Opticon Systems, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cristino L. Perez, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:





The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: October 2, 2009





/s/ Cristino L. Perez


Cristino L. Perez, Chief Accounting Officer
**Exhibit 10.58**

 

Delivery Order DTFA01-02-C-23003

Contract DTFA01-02-C-00023

Modification/Revision 1

 

DELIVERY ORDER DO#3

Under Contract No. DTFA01-02-C-00023

 

The purpose of thismodification is to apply the Defense Priority and Allocation Rating to item number7 of the delivery order.

 

1.                                       7.  Defense Priority and Allocation Requirementis hereby deleted and replaced by:

 

7.                                                               DefensePriority and Allocation Requirement

 

The Transportation SecurityAdministration, U.S. Department of Transportation (TSA/DOT) is authorized touse the DO-H8 priority rating in accordance with the provisions of the DefensePriorities and Allocations System (DPAS) regulation (15 C.F.R. § 700, et seq.)on its contracts and orders placed with U.S. contractors and suppliers,including InVision Technologies, Inc. to support the acquisition of ExplosiveDetection Systems (EDS) machines, including applicable spare parts and servicesubcontracts, for the TSA/DOT Transportation Threat Protection Program (TTPP).  The TTPP is approved as a national defenseprogram as defined in the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950, as amended (50U.S.C. App. § 2152(13)).

 

This Rating Authorization isgranted under the authority of Section 101(a) of the DPA of 1950, as amended(50 U.S.C App. § 2071, et seq,) and the DPAS, and with the concurrenceof the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  Except as needed to support the procurement of applicable spareparts and maintenance and repair services, this Rating Authorization willterminate upon delivery of all the EDS machines required by TSA/DOT to satisfymachine requirements under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001(Pub. L. No. 107-71, 155 Stat. 597 (2001)).

 

DO-H8 priority rating herebyapplies to this delivery order.  TheContractor shall follow all requirements of the DPAS regulation (15 C.F.R. §700, et seq.) during the conduct of this delivery order.

 

2.                                       Exceptas provided herein, all other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

 

END OF DELIVERY ORDER

 

----
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 3

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide

that expenditures for a fiscal year shall neither exceed revenues for

such fiscal year nor 19 per centum of the Nation’s gross national product

for the last calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal

year.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. KYL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to provide that expenditures for a fiscal year

shall neither exceed revenues for such fiscal year nor

19 per centum of the Nation’s gross national product

for the last calendar year ending before the beginning

of such fiscal year.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
2

SJ 3 IS

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission

3 for ratification:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE—

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. Except as provided in this article, out6 lays of the United States Government for any fiscal year

7 may not exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. Except as provided in this article, the

9 outlays of the United States Government for a fiscal year

10 may not exceed 19 per centum of the Nation’s gross na11 tional product for that fiscal year.

12 ‘‘SECTION 3. The Congress may, by law, provide for

13 suspension of the effect of sections 1 or 2 of this article

14 for any fiscal year for which three-fifths of the whole num15 ber of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for

16 a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 19 per

17 centum of the Nation’s gross national product.

18 ‘‘SECTION 4. Total receipts shall include all receipts

19 of the United States except those derived from borrowing

20 and total outlays shall include all outlays of the United

21 States except those for the repayment of debt principal.

22 ‘‘SECTION 5. This article shall apply to the second

23 fiscal year beginning after its ratification and to subse-
3

SJ 3 IS

1 quent fiscal years, but not to fiscal years beginning before

2 October 1, 2001.’’.

Æ
#### Anthony Lonnie FORBES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1795

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 27, 2017

Anthony Lonnie Forbes, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy S. Lester, Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr., OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*169PER CURIAM:

Anthony Lonnie Forbes appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Forbes v. Seaworld Parks & Entm’t,*No. 4:16-cv-00172-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. filed June 2, 2017; entered June 5, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0293 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0293

**2001/293/EC: Commission Decision of 30 March 2001 amending Council Directive 95/70/EC introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain diseases affecting bivalve molluscs, in relation to the list of national reference laboratories for diseases of bivalve molluscs (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 978) **

*
Official Journal L 100 , 11/04/2001 P. 0030 - 0031 *

Commission Decision

of 30 March 2001

amending Council Directive 95/70/EC introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain diseases affecting bivalve molluscs, in relation to the list of national reference laboratories for diseases of bivalve molluscs

(notified under document number C(2001) 978)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2001/293/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 95/70/EC of 22 December 1995, introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain diseases affecting bivalve molluscs(1) and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Council Directive 95/70/EC, Article 6(2) lays down that Member States shall ensure that in each Member State a national reference laboratory is designated, with facilities and expert personnel enabling it to carry out the testing referred to in paragraph I of the same Article.

(2) Paragraph 3 of the same Article lays down that by way of derogation from paragraph 2, Member States which do not have a national laboratory competent in the matter may use the services of a national laboratory with competence in the matter in another Member State.

(3) The list of national reference laboratories for diseases of bivalve molluscs is set out in Annex C to Directive 95/70/EC.

(4) This list needs to be updated.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex C to Directive 95/70/EC is hereby replaced by the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 2001.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 332, 30.12.1995, p. 33.

ANNEX

"ANNEX C

NATIONAL REFERENCE LABORATORIES FOR DISEASES OF BIVALVE MOLLUSCS

>TABLE>"
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 966 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                 S. 966

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 1996

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
       For the relief of Nathan C. Vance, 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. PAYMENT TO NATHAN C. VANCE.

    (a) Payment.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary of 
Agriculture shall pay $4,850.00 to Nathan C. Vance of Wyoming for fire 
loss arising out of the Mink Area Fire in and around Yellowstone 
National Park in 1988.
    (b) Source of Funds.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay the 
amount specified in subsection (a) from amounts made available under 
section 1304 of title 31, United States Code.
    (c) Condition of Payment.--The payment made pursuant to subsection 
(a) shall be in full satisfaction of the claim of Nathan C. Vance 
against the United States, for fire loss arising out of the Mink Area 
Fire, that was received by the Forest Service in August 1990.

            Passed the Senate April 30, 1996.

            Attest:

                                             KELLY D. JOHNSTON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### Donna M. CARROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-35265

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Donna M. Carroll, Pro Se

John Anthony Fonstad, Susan Jane Lindquist, Esquire,. Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Donna M. Carroll appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment after a bench trial in her Federal Tort Claims Act action alleging battery by a doctor. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s findings of fact. *Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido,*370 F.3d 837, 843 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in its factual findings because they were “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” *Husain v. Olympic Airways,*316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[I]f the district court’s findings are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the appellate court cannot reverse even if it is convinced it would have found differently.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in its trial management decisions, including the mode of cross-examination at trial or allowing a witness to testify by telephone. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a)(1)-(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a); *see also Navellier v. Sletten,*262 F.3d 923, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review); S. *Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch,*307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e will reverse a district court’s litigation management decisions only if it abused its discretion, or if the procedures deprived the litigant of due process of law within the meaning of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.” (citation omitted)); *United States v. Goode,*814 F.2d 1353, 1355 (9th Cir. 1987) (district court’s discretion in conducting trials “is to be limited only when a party’s rights are somehow prejudiced”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Carroll’s contentions that dismissed defendants were required to respond to the summons, that the district court overlooked evidence at trial, and that the district court was biased against Carroll.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         9,469
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  15,387
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,502
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               27,525
<PP&E>                                         557,942
<DEPRECIATION>                                 153,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 435,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          24,278
<BONDS>                                        204,514
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    12
<COMMON>                                       199
<OTHER-SE>                                     189,969
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   435,358
<SALES>                                        52,546
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               53,207
<CGS>                                          37,948
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  46,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               167
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9,729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                <2,925>
<INCOME-TAX>                                   <394>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            <2,531>
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   <2,531>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  <.23>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  <.23>
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 64 Referred in House (RFH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 64

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 1996

          Referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  To recognize and honor the Filipino World War II veterans for their 
 defense of democratic ideals and their important contribution to the 
                        outcome of World War II.

Whereas the Commonwealth of the Philippines was strategically located and thus 
        vital to the defense of the United States during World War II;
Whereas the military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines were called 
        into the United States Armed Forces during World War II by Executive 
        order and were put under the command of General Douglas MacArthur;
Whereas the participation of the military forces of the Commonwealth of the 
        Philippines in the battles of Bataan and Corregidor and in other smaller 
        skirmishes delayed and disrupted the initial Japanese effort to conquer 
        the Western Pacific;
Whereas that delay and disruption allowed the United States the vital time to 
        prepare the forces which were needed to drive the Japanese from the 
        Western Pacific and to defeat Japan;
Whereas after the recovery of the Philippine Islands from Japan, the United 
        States was able to use the strategically located Commonwealth of the 
        Philippines as a base from which to launch the final efforts to defeat 
        Japan;
Whereas every American deserves to know the important contribution that the 
        military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines made to the 
        outcome of World War II; and
Whereas the Filipino World War II veterans deserve recognition and honor for 
        their important contribution to the outcome of World War II: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the President should issue a 
proclamation which recognizes and honors the Filipino World War II 
veterans for their defense of democratic ideals and their important 
contribution to the outcome of World War II.

            Passed the Senate July 17, 1996.

            Attest:

                                             KELLY D. JOHNSTON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2791 SHIRLEY J. HALL, Widow of George Hall, Petitioner, versus NOBLE COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED; ROYALTY SMOKELESS COAL COMPANY; DIGUM COAL COMPANY; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS PNEUMONOCONIOSISFUND; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-257-BLA) Submitted: April 20, 1999 Decided: June 9, 1999 Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shirley J. Hall, Petitioner Pro Se. Konstantine Keian Weld, OFFICEOF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia; John Headley Shott, Sr., SHOTT, GURGANUS & WILLIAMSON, Bluefield, West Virginia; Rita A. Roppolo, Christian P. Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Shirley J. Hall seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1998). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Hall v. Noble Coal Company , BRB No. 98-257-BLA (B.R.B. Oct. 23, 1998). 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