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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 103 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the effective Federal tax rate paid 

by the President and Vice-President of the United States, and Members 

of the House of Representatives and Senate, should not be less than 

the effective Federal tax rate paid by middle class Americans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2012 

Mr. BOSWELL (for himself, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. COSTA, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. 

BOREN, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. LOEBSACK, 

and Mr. BRALEY of Iowa) submitted the following concurrent resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the effective Federal 

tax rate paid by the President and Vice-President of 

the United States, and Members of the House of Representatives and Senate, should not be less than the 

effective Federal tax rate paid by middle class Americans. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the ef3 fective Federal tax rate paid by the President of the 

4 United States, the Vice President of the United States, 

5 Members of the House of Representatives (including any 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 103 IH 

1 Delegate and Resident Commissioner), and Members of 

2 the Senate, should not be less than the effective Federal 

3 tax rate paid by middle class Americans. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 17650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9233]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 040-08948]


Notice of Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 
CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that, by a letter dated July 22, 1996, Mr. 
Sherwood Bauman requested the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 
or Commission) to take action with regard to NRC licensee Shieldalloy 
Metallurgical Corporation (Shieldalloy) and former NRC licensee Foote 
Mineral Company (now Cypress Foote).
    The Petition requests that Foote Mineral's license be reinstated, 
and that Shieldalloy and Cypress Foote be made co-responsible licensees 
with regard to proper remediation and decommissioning of the 
Shieldalloy site. The Petition also requests that Shieldalloy's current 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the site be terminated, and 
that Shieldalloy and Cypress Foote be jointly ordered to submit a 
decommissioning plan for licensed material that includes within it only 
a plan to remediate licensed material.
    The Petition is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the 
Commission's regulations. The Petition has been referred to the 
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. As provided 
by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this Petition 
within a reasonable time.
    A copy of the Petition is available for inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, 
D.C. 20555.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 4 day of April 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl J. Paperiello,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 97-9233 Filed 4-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
# T

SEA N P . DUFF Y 7TI I ni.sTRlcr . \V'i.s(:o\si N tt<'iiiiMr,TONi)tni:E 120 8 loNf.ftDK'n i HoLS t Otuc i HPJUKNC . \VAMI1N0TC5N . D C 20T|=i-HW 7 PlKlVK : (2(12 ) 2iS-3.« " F,v x (202 ) 22V32j n Tcil.l.-l-KhV : I-HST-^KS—|2S 1 I\'irR\tT : LlnnV.llDKS C g l )\ ' 

# Congres s of th e Unite dState s Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D C 20515-490 7

Augus t 1,201 1 COMMITTE E O N FINANCIA

L SERVICE

S si'ijcoMMmrt s KiN.WriA L iNsrniTKJN. S ASl > CONSlMt H CKHDI T lNSiit\\c:h . HmsiNt. ; A\r ) C.oMM i Nn^i ' Oi>roHTvM"n[ " JOIN T ECONOMI C COMMITTE

E

Aloh aLey , Associat e Director Smal l Communit y Ai r

Servic e Developmen t

Progra m Unite dState s Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Dear Ms . Ley : IN J r n .-r

_-^ ^ rfi^r n -—'—j— ^ 

### 5 0 0 

# e~^-

I a mwritin g t o expres s m y support for a n applicatio n submitte db y th e Rhinelander-Oneid a Count y Airport

(RHI ) fo r

aSmal l Communit y Ai r

Servic e Grant , whic h wil l b e use dfor defrayin g start u p cost s associate dwit h ne w airlin e servic e at th e airport . Earlier thi s year , airport

managemen t

wa s notifie dthat , effectiv e Septembe r 5 , 2011 , Delt a Airline s woul db e eliminatin g schedule dservic e at th e Rhinelande r

facility . Althoug h servic e i s offere db y anothe r

carrier , th e schedul e limitation s o f thi s carrie r

hav e bee n foimdb y man y traveler s t o b e unattractiv e and , consequently , decision s ar e bein g mad e t o originat e ai r trave l ou t

o f facilitie s othe r tha n RHI . Althoug hth e economi c impact s ar e unknow n at thi s time , i t

i s anticipate dthat

thi s majo r gap i n servic e wil l ultimatel y hav e adetrimenta l impac t o n th e loca l economy . I hav e bee n advise db y Airport Manage r Jo e Braue r

that asourc e o f

servic e ha s bee n identifie dwhic hwil l lin k RH I wit h Chicago-O'Har e (ORD) . Th e opportunit y t o lin k OR D hu b carrier s Unite do r

America n wil l provid e amuc h mor e attractiv e optio n t o traveler s an dhel p t o ensur e acontinuit y o f

qualit y ai r

servic e originatin g fromRHI . Du e t o m y interes t

i n thi s application , I woul dappreciat e bein g kep t informe do f

an y developments . Pleas e direc t an y correspondenc e t o m e at m y Distric t Constituen t

Service s Cente r locate dat 20 8 Gran dAvenue , Wausau , W I 54403 . Shoul dyo u hav e an y question s o r requir e an y additiona l information , pleas e d o no t hesitat e t o contac t m y Outreac h Director , Kevi n Jenkins , at (715 ) 298-934 4 o r

b y e-mai l at kevin.j enkins(2!ma

i 1 . house , gov . Onc e again , I amplease dt o expres s m y support for thi s application . Sincerely ,

SPD/k j Sea n P . Duff y Membe r o f Congres s

I'KlX'li n 0 \IvTC'it-.l. l I ) \'\VV M
IV 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 114 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should preserve, 

enhance, and increase access to an open, global Internet. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2012 

Mr. MCCAUL (for himself and Mr. LANGEVIN) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States 

should preserve, enhance, and increase access to an open, 

global Internet. 

Whereas in a September 12, 2011, letter to the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, the Permanent Representatives of China, the Russian Federation, 

Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to the United Nations wrote 

of their intention to offer a General Assembly resolution 

calling for an international code of conduct for information security; 

Whereas this proposed code seeks to establish international 

legal justification for exclusive government control over 

Internet resources and rejects the current multi-stakeholder model that has enabled the Internet to flourish, 

where the private sector, civil society, academia, and indiVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:43 Mar 27, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HC114.IH HC114

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 114 IH 

vidual users played an important role in charting its direction; 

Whereas countries have obligations to protect human rights, 

which apply to activity online as well as offline; 

Whereas the ability to innovate, develop technical capacity, 

grasp economic opportunities, and promote freedom of 

expression online is best realized in cooperation with all 

stakeholders; 

Whereas the proposed code represents a threat to the free 

flow of information on the Internet and would diminish 

the universal right to freedom of expression in favor of 

government control over content in order to preserve political stability, contrary to international law; 

Whereas the position of the United States Government is and 

has been to advocate for the free flow of information, 

Internet freedom, and multi-stakeholder governance 

internationally; and 

Whereas the White House’s May 2011 International Strategy 

for Cyberspace makes an open, global Internet a clear 

policy priority of the United States: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that if a reso3 lution calling for endorsement of the proposed inter4 national code of conduct for information security or a res5 olution inconsistent with the principles above comes up for 

6 a vote in the United Nations General Assembly or other 

7 international organization, the Permanent Representative 

8 of the United States to the United Nations or the United 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HCON 114 IH 

1 States representative to such other international organiza2 tion should oppose such a resolution. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 12-6480.

#### Hatches, aka Smith, aka Dove, aka Farvey *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JIM M Y NATHAN M OODY,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. ER IC AR N OLD, Ac ting W arde n; C ALIFOR

NIA DEPT. OF C ORR EC TIONS, Ironwood Sta te Prison, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-56768 D.C . No. 2:08-c v-04530-ODW -AJW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 6, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, ** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r-Appe lla

nt Jim m y Natha n M oody (M oody ) a

ppe a ls the distric t
c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for a writ of ha

be a s c orpus. Following a jury tria l, 

# FIL ED FEB 20 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.M oody

wa s c onvic te d of first-de gre e m urde r, atte m

pte d m urde r, and shooting a

t a n inha bite d dwe l ling. M oody

a s se rts a c la im of a c tua l innoc e n c e . M oody ’ s c la im is gove rne d by the Antite rrorism

and Effe c t ive De a th Pe na lty Ac t of 1996, a

nd ha be a s re lie f m ay

be gran te d only

upon a finding tha

t the la st re a sone d sta

te c ourt de c ision re

je c ting his c la im

“ wa s c ontra

ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

ble
a pplic a tion of, c le arly

e s ta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de t e rm i ne d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s.” Godoy v . Spe arman , 861 F.3d 956, 962 (9th C ir. 2017) (c ita

tion omitte d). The la st re a sone d de c ision a ddre ssing M oody ’ s a c tua l innoc e nc e c la im wa s the C a l ifornia

Supe rior C ourt de c ision de ny ing ha be a s re lie f on this c l a im
. In de ny ing M oody ’ s ha

be a s pe tition, the Supe rior C ourt of C a lifornia he ld tha t M oody ha d fa ile d to m ake a

suffic i e nt showing to wa rrant re lie f. Spe c ific a l ly , the Supe rior C ourt found tha

t the de c la

ra tions provide d by

M oody did not “ point
une rringly

to the innoc e nc e of Pe titione r.” In reRic h ards , 55 C a l. 4th 948, 959 (2012). Assum ing, without de c iding, tha t a fre e sta n ding c la im of a c tua l innoc e nc e is
c ogniz a ble in a fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition, se e He r

re ra v . C ollins , 506 U.S. 390, 417 (1993), the Supe rior C o urt’ s de te rm ination wa s not “ c ontra ry to” or “ an
unre a s ona

ble a p plic a tion” of c l e arly

e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w. Se e id. (obse rving
2that

a suc c e ssful a c tua l innoc e nc e c la im would ha ve to m e e t a

n “ e xtra o rdina

rily high” “ thre shold showing” ). AFFIRM E D.

3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8984]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service; Executive Office for 
Immigration Review

8 CFR Part 3

[INS 1788-96; AG Order No. 2071-97]
RIN 1115-AE47


Immigration and Naturalization Service and Executive Office for 
Immigration Review; Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens; 
Detention and Removal of Aliens; Conduct of Removal Proceedings; Asylum 
Procedures; Correction

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service and Executive Office for 
Immigration Review.

ACTION: Correction to interim regulation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the interim regulation, 
published Thursday, March 6, 1997 (62 FR 10312), relating to inspection 
and expedited removal of aliens, detention and removal of aliens, 
conduct of removal proceedings, and asylum procedures.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Margaret M. Philbin, (703) 305-0470 (not a toll free call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The interim regulation that is the subject of these corrections 
amends the regulations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
and Executive Office for Immigration Review to implement the provisions 
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996 governing expedited and regular removal proceedings, handling of 
asylum claims, and other activities involving the apprehension, 
determination, hearing of claims and ultimately the removal of 
inadmissible and deportable aliens. This rule also incorporates a 
number of changes which are part of the Administration's reinvention 
and regulation streamlining effort. On April 1, 1997, a correction 
notice (62 FR 15362, FR Doc. 97-8105) was published correcting those 
technical errors contained in the interim regulation. This notice 
corrects an additional technical error contained in the interim 
regulation.

Need for Correction

    As published, the interim regulation contained errors which were in 
need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication on March 6, 1997, of the interim 
regulation (INS No. 1788-96; AG Order No. 2071-97), which was the 
subject of FR Doc. 97-5250, is corrected as follows:


Sec. 3.23  [Corrected]

    1. On page 10333, in the first column, in Sec. 3.23(b)(1), the 
reference to ``Sec. 208.22(f)'' at the end of paragraph (b)(1) 
introductory text is removed and is replaced with a reference to 
``Sec. 208.22(e)''.
Rosemary Hart,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-8984 Filed 4-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-87-M
1Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-60410

Summary Calendar

WILLIAM FRAZIER

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

(4:95-CV-110-LN)

November 11, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Appellant Frazier sued Appellee National Union to recover

punitive damages under Mississippi law for failure to properly pay

state workers’ compensation benefits. Following the partial grant

of Appellee’s motion to strike certain of Appellant’s evidence

submitted in opposition to Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
2

the district court granted summary judgment for Appellee. We

affirm.

The district court found that there was no issue of material

fact that National Union was reasonable in its position that

Frazier’s claim for compensation benefits was barred by the

applicable period of prescription. Since its actions were

reasonable, there was no predicate for awarding punitive damages

for failure to pay; despite the fact that the Mississippi

Commissioner ultimately found that the claim was not barred by

prescription. We have carefully reviewed the record and Judge

Lee’s detailed opinion and find no error. The issue is not whether

National Union’s decision was correct but only whether it was

reasonable under the circumstances.

Likewise, we find no error in the district court’s ruling on

the Motion to Strike. 

We affirm the decision of the district court essentially for

the reasons given by it.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9792]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[IN73-1b; FRL-5808-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The USEPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision request submitted by the Indiana Department of 
Environmental Maintenance (IDEM) on October 2, 1996. In the October 2 
submittal, IDEM requested a SIP revision to eliminate references to 
total suspended particulates (TSP) while maintaining the existing 
opacity requirements. In the final rules section of this Federal 
Register, USEPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final 
rule without prior proposal because the agency views this as a 
noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A 
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final 
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this proposed 
rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this rule. If 
USEPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be 
withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a 
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. USEPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by May 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request are available for inspection 
at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone Ryan Bahr, 
Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353-4366 before visiting the Region 5 
Office.)
    Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Bahr, at (312) 353-4366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and 
Regulations Section of this Federal Register.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: March 28, 1997.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-9792 Filed 4-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1


                               THIRD AMENDMENT TO
                            GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
                        1998 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


         WHEREAS, GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE, INC. (the "Company") has heretofore
adopted the GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE, INC. 1998 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN (the
"Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective as of
October 1, 2001:

         1. The fifth sentence of subparagraph 7(e) of the Plan shall be deleted
and the following shall be substituted therefor:

         "Further, notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this subparagraph
         7(e), if a participant takes a leave of absence that is described in
         the first or third sentence of this subparagraph 7(e) and such leave of
         absence exceeds the Maximum Period, then he shall be considered to have
         withdrawn from the Plan pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 9
         hereof and terminated his employment for purposes of the Plan on the
         day immediately following the last day of the Maximum Period. For
         purposes of the preceding sentence, the term "Maximum Period" shall
         mean, with respect to a participant, the 90-day period beginning on the
         first day of the participant's leave of absence; provided, however,
         that if the participant's right to reemployment by the Company (or a
         parent or subsidiary corporation of the Company) is guaranteed either
         by statute or contract, then such 90-day period shall be extended until
         the last day upon which such reemployment rights are so guaranteed."

         2. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
#### IN the INTEREST OF: J.T., a Minor

803 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/14/2017

CP-21-DP-0000214-2014 (Cumberland)

Affirmed