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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 95

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 17, 1997

Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing and commending American airmen held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald concentration camp during World War II for their service, bravery, and fortitude.

Whereas 168 Allied airmen captured by Axis forces during

World War II were held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald concentration camp in Weimar, Germany;

Whereas of these captured airmen, 82 were Americans, 26

were Canadians, 48 were Britons, 9 were Australians, 2

were New Zealanders, and 1 was Jamaican;
2

HCON 95 RFS

Whereas the facts and circumstances of their confinement are

amply documented in the official records maintained by

the National Archives and Records Administration;

Whereas a report from the International Red Cross concerning Stalag Luft III in Sagan, Germany, mentioned six

American airmen held at Buchenwald, including one

whose name does not appear on the lists maintained by

the National Archives;

Whereas since the liberation of Buchenwald in 1945 numerous personal memoirs, scholarly books, and articles have

been published describing the conditions at the concentration camp;

Whereas this extensive documentation records the extraordinarily inhuman treatment, deprivations, and personal

suffering inflicted on these 168 Allied airmen and other

inmates at Buchenwald; and

Whereas Allied Governments and veterans organizations outside the United States have granted special recognition to

their citizens and servicemembers who were held as political prisoners in World War II concentration camps: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) recognizes and commends the 82 American

4 airmen held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald

5 concentration camp during World War II for their

6 faithful service, personal bravery, and exceptional

7 fortitude; and
3

HCON 95 RFS

1 (2) requests that the President issue a procla2 mation recognizing and commending, by name, the

3 service, bravery, and fortitude of those airmen.

Passed the House of Representatives September 16,

1997.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
1 

### Damberg, Rich

From: Brachtl, Megan

Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:48 PM

To: Szabo, Aaron

Cc: Ling, Michael; Damberg, Rich; Schillo, Bruce; Frey, Nathan J.

Subject: revised draft NPRM package for PM2.5 NAAQS implementation

Attachments: Feb 2015 to Sep 2014 PM25 impl rule REDLINE for OMB.pdf

Importance: High

Aaron

– Attached is the latest version, in redline/strikeout format, of the PM2.5 implementation rule. It reflects the

changes discussed with you and other interagency reviewers since the package was originally submitted to OMB on

September 23, 2014. It also reflects edits made by EPA independent of the interagency review process in order to

correct typographical errors and to help clarify options or our rationale for options included in the proposal. We have

flagged in the right margin those edits made in response to interagency comments. Please note that some of the longer

passages of text inserted in this draft in response to interagency comments may be slightly different from the language

we sent to you in a separate “response to comment” document on 2/13/15. These modifications were made in an effort

to improve clarity or accuracy of the new text.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Megan

Megan V. Brachtl, Group Leader

State and Local Programs Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(919) 541

‐ 2648

brachtl.megan@epa.gov
#### Chris E. REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105168

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: December 19, 2017

FOR APPELLANT: Randall Brachman, 1010 Market Street, Suite 100, St. Louis, Missouri 68101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Shaun J. Mack-elprang, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J. and Philip M. Hess, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Chris Reed (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, following an evidentiary hearing, denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Movant argues that the motion court erred in denying his motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for: 1) failing to offer an audio recording of his ex-girlfriend’s interrogation for impeachment purposes; and 2) failing to call Movant to testify. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8510 

To modify the Federal share for Federal-aid highway projects for fiscal 

years 2021 and 2022, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 2, 2020 

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To modify the Federal share for Federal-aid highway projects 

for fiscal years 2021 and 2022, 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 ‘‘Highway Relief Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY FEDERAL SHARE FOR FEDERAL-AID 

6 HIGHWAY PROJECTS. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Fed8 eral share of the cost of a project under title 23, United 

9 States Code, for which amounts are made available during 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8510 IH

1 fiscal year 2021 and 2022 may be up to 100 percent, at 

2 the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
# C_2021228EN.01003701.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/37

---

Action brought on 23 April 2021 — Agora Invest v EUIPO — Transportes Maquinaria y Obras (TRAMOSA)

(Case T-219/21)

(2021/C 228/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Agora Invest, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Transportes Maquinaria y Obras, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark TRAMOSA — Application for registration No 17 236 531

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2021 in Case R 566/2020-5

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject opposition B 3 029 199 to EU trade mark application No 17 236 531; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject opposition B 3 029 199 to EU trade mark application No 17 236 531;

| — | grant EU trade mark No 17 236 531 TRAMOSA (with graphic representation); |
| --- | --- |

—

grant EU trade mark No 17 236 531 TRAMOSA (with graphic representation);

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
2022 EAVS Data Brief: Pennsylvania EAVS Jurisdictions:

67 

 Voter Registration 

Active Reg. Voters as of Nov. 8, 20221 

8,033,385 

Reg. Forms Received2* 

2,881,107 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3* 

964,386 

Voters Removed from Reg. Rolls4* 

993,216 

Source of Registration Applications5 

Motor Vehicle Dept. 60.5% 

Online 19.7% 

Other 12.6% 

Mail, Email, Fax 6.2% 

In Person 1.1% 

 Voting and Turnout 

Voters Participating By Mode6 

7 Turnout 

54.5% In-Person 

Election Day 

4,126,903 

76.3% 

Mail 

1,234,943 

22.8% 

Other 

48,176 

0.9% 

Total Voting Locations8: 9,154 

Total Poll Workers9: 48,340 

Election Technology 

Percentage of Jurisdictions Using...10 

100.0% 

Ballot 

Marking 

Devices 

100.0% 

Scanners 

23.9% 

Electronic 

Poll 

Books 

0.0% 

DREs w/o 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

DREs with 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

Hand 

Counting 

 Mail Ballots 

• 1,433,665 mail ballots transmitted11 

• 87.8% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters12 

• 98.1% of returned mail ballots counted13 

• 1.9% of returned mail ballots rejected14 

• Did not conduct all-mail election15 

• Allowed drop boxes16 

• Allowed ballot curing17 

 Election Audits18 

-- Access audit 

-- Ballot design audit 

Ballot reconciliation ✔ audit 

Compliance/ -- procedural audit 

-- Eligibility audit 

-- Legal audit 

Logic and accuracy ✔ testing 

Post-election ✔ tabulation audit 

-- Other 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov 

/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available,” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2020 

general election to close of 

registration for 2022 general 

election. 

1 A1b of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 A9a of EAVS. 

5 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a/A3a. 

In Person is A4b/A3a. Online is 

A4c/A3a. Motor Vehicle Dept. is 

A4d/A3a. Other is the sum of 

A4e–A4l/A3a. May not sum to 

100% because of missing data. 

6 In-Person Election Day is F1b. 

Mail is F1d+F1g. In-Person Early 

is F1f. Other is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

7 F1a of EAVS divided by citizen 

voting age population (CVAP). 

8 D2a of EAVS. 

9 D7a of EAVS. 

10 F3a–f, F5a–F9a of EAVS; 

number of jurisdictions that 

responded “Yes” divided by

number of jurisdictions in 

state/territory. 

11 C1a of EAVS. 

12 C1b/C1a of EAVS. 

13 C8a/C1b of EAVS. 

14 C9a/C1b of EAVS. 

15 Q17 and Q17a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

17 Q20 of Policy Survey. 

18 Q36 of Policy Survey. See 

survey questionnaire for full 

definitions of each type of 

audit.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            Defense Threat Reduction Agency
                Defense Threat Reduction Agency
        Search
                    Search Defense Threat Reduction Agency:
                        Search
                Search Defense Threat Reduction Agency:
                    Search
    Home

    About
    
        DTRA Leadership

    DTRA History

    Mission

    Strategic Initiatives

    Foreign Malign Influence

    Agency Overview Brief (pdf)

    Agency Financial Report

    Careers & Opportunities
    
        Your Civilian Career

    Your Military Career

    Welcome Aboard

    Business
    
        DTRA Contract Award Data

    Office of Small Business

    Mentor Protege Program

    News & Media
    
        Press Center

    Contact Us

    Joint Operations Center  Press Releases

   DTRA Remembers Semipalatinsk Test Site 2021 - A Preview

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   
    

   

   MEDIA HOME

   RESOURCES

   PRESS RELEASES

   TESTIMONY

   SPECIAL EVENTS

   

   

   PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONTACT
   703-767-5870DTRA-PA@MAIL.MIL
 Stay Connected
                
                
                **ABOUT DTRA**The Defense Threat Reduction Agency enables DoD, the U.S. Government and International Partners to counter and deter Weapons of Mass Destruction and Emerging Threats.
    
    LEARN MORENews & Media »Operating Status »Work With Us »Directions to DTRA »
    
    DTRA logo
    
    **CONNECT WITH US**FOIA/Privacy | E.I. | Accessibility|USA.gov | DTRA Careers
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY
2800 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-2800

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY WORKFORCE
SUBJECT: FY23 Prevention of Sexual Harassment Policy

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) will not tolerate or condone sexual
harassment of any form. DSCA will promptly investigate all allegations of sexual harassment
and take immediate, appropriate corrective or disciplinary action against individuals found to
have engaged in such conduct.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is prohibited in the workplace.
Unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of
a sexual nature may constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made
either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission
to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions
affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably
interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment. A victim may be anyone affected by the conduct, not just the
person to whom the conduct was directed. A harasser may be the victim's supervisor, a co-
worker, or non-Agency employee, and both the victim and harasser may be the same sex.

All individuals within the Federal workplace, including Federal employees, contractors,
students/interns, and military personnel, are protected from sexual harassment. Individuals who
believe they have been sexually harassed or have observed conduct that could be sexual
harassment are encouraged to tell the offending person the behavior is inappropriate,
unwelcomed, and must stop, and the individuals should immediately report the matter to someone
within their supervisory chain. If the individual is uncomfortable reporting the matter within their
supervisory chain, then the individual should immediately contact our Talent Management (TM)
Directorate or the Defense Logistics Agency EEO & Diversity Office! by email at
HQEEOinquiries@dla.mil or by phone at 571-767-6777. Employees should contact a DLA EEO
Counselor no later than 45 calendar days from the date of the alleged harassment.

Managers and supervisors must play an active role to ensure our work environment is free
from sexual harassment and sex-based harassment. Upon becoming aware that an employee is
being harassed, managers and supervisors will take prompt, appropriate action to stop the
harassment and will immediately report all allegations of sexual harassment to DSCA's TM
Directorate, Join me in ensuring DSCA is a workplace free of sexual harassment. For more
information, please visit the DSCA EEO website at https://www.dsca.mil/eeo-equal-employment-

Opportunity.
Pome oD
James A. Hursch

Director

1 DLA provides EEO and human resource services to DSCA.
No. 11-10122.

#### Munoz *v.*Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### COM. v. HALL, T.

3075 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/19/2017

CP-51-CR-0004620-2012 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
#### MACDONALD v. MACDONALD

20170789

Supreme Court of Utah.

12-12-2017

20150785, 402 P.3d 178

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Granted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chuck Wayne BOYD, a.k.a. Dred, a.k.a. Jamaican, a.k.a. Bumble Bee, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-13183 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 26, 2018)

Andrea G. Hoffman, Emily M. Smachet-ti, U.S. Attorney Service — Southern District of Florida, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Chuck Wayne Boyd, Pro Se

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges;

PER CURIAM:

Chuck Wayne Boyd appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his second motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, and the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. Boyd bases his appeal on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that he was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782, that he improperly received a criminal history category of VI, and that his 300-month sentence created a sentencing disparity and therefore violated 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Pleadings drafted pro se “are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” *Tannenbaun v. United States,*148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). However, a pro se appellant still abandons an issue when he fails to offer argument on the issue in his brief. *Timson v. Sampson,*518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

Boyd’s pro se brief does not mention the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion or the denial of his motion for reconsideration and thus he has abandoned any arguments as to those aspects of his appeal. *Id.*As to Boyd’s motion to reduce his sentence, the district court did not err by denying his motion because we have previously affirmed the district court’s first denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 and he has not demonstrated any exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine. *See United States v. Boyd,*No. 15-13154 (11th Cir. December 3, 2015) (per curiam) (unpublished order); *United States v. Tamayo,*80 F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th Cir. 1996) (explaining that under the law-of-the-case doctrine “[a]n appellate decision binds all subsequent proceedings in the same case not only as to explicit rulings, but also as to issues decided necessarily by implication on the prior appeal”). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
#### WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Petitioner-Appellee, and Satterfield Legal, PLLC, Substitute Trustee; Sarah Banks, Substitute Trustee, Attorney in Fact, Plaintiffs, v. Lynton Yates BALLENTINE, Jr.; LB International Express Trust, Non Corporate Entity (Rela Party in Interest, Tertius Intervenie), Defendants-Appellants.

No. 17-2187

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 26, 2018

Decided: March 7, 2018

Lynton Ballentine, Appellant Pro Se. Aleksandra Elzbieta Anderson, John T. Benjamin, Jr., William Earle Hubbard, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN T. BENJAMIN, JR., PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding the foreclosure action filed against Appellants back to state court. We dismiss the appeal.

Remand orders are generally “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The Supreme Court has explained that the appellate restrictions of “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) [i.e., lack of subject matter jurisdiction and defects in removal procedures] are immune from review under § 1447(d).” *Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca,*516 U.S. 124, 127, *255116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995). Whether a remand order is reviewable is not based on a district court’s explicit citation to § 1447(c); “[t]he bar of § 1447(d) applies to any order invoking substantively one of the grounds specified in § 1447(c).” *Bomeman v. United States,*213 F.3d 819, 824-25 (4th Cir. 2000).

Here, the district court explicitly noted that there was no subject matter jurisdiction and cited § 1447(c). Because the basis for remand fell within the ambit of § 1447(c), we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the district court’s order. Thus, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8520 

To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to issue or revise regulations or 

guidance to clarify that the educator expense tax deduction includes 

expenses for personal protective equipment and other supplies related 

to the prevention of the spread of COVID–19. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 2, 2020 

Mrs. MURPHY of Florida (for herself and Mrs. WALORSKI) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to issue or revise 

regulations or guidance to clarify that the educator expense tax deduction includes expenses for personal protective equipment and other supplies related to the prevention of the spread of COVID–19. 

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 ‘‘Supporting Educators 

5 During COVID–19 Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8520 IH

1 SEC. 2. REGULATIONS OR GUIDANCE CLARIFYING APPLI2 CATION OF EDUCATOR EXPENSE TAX DEDUC3 TION. 

4 Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact5 ment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury (or the 

6 Secretary’s delegate) shall by regulation or other guidance 

7 clarify that personal protective equipment, disinfectant, 

8 and other supplies used for the prevention of the spread 

9 of COVID–19 are included in the educator expense tax 

10 deduction described in section 62(a)(2)(D) of the Internal 

11 Revenue Code of 1986. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### COM. v. ADORNO-MARTINEZ, M.

3467 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/19/2017

CP-15-CR-0005089-2005 (Chester)

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,660,333
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               30,684,090
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,250,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,385,052
<PP&E>                                     205,815,463
<DEPRECIATION>                              43,355,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             305,793,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       41,171,521
<BONDS>                                     63,858,441
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       251,796
<OTHER-SE>                                 160,179,223
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               305,793,296
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            55,192,677
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,495,790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,537,723
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               761,895
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             983,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,293,371
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,700,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            593,371
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   593,371
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>