alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CANCELLATION

In the August 21, 2009 West Virginia Register , the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced an opportunity for a public hearing on a proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality standards for ozone and very fine particulate matter. In this proposed revision to the SIP, West Virginia is demonstrating compliance with specific Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2) requirements through a document affirming that the State meets these express requirements through authorities granted under state laws and regulations, as well as implementation of existing air programs. DEP sought comments on whether the document adequately demonstrates West Virginia’s compliance with the pertinent federal CAA mandates related to these so-called infrastructure elements. The public comment period began August 21, 2009 and ended September 21, 2009. No comments were received and no person requested a public hearing. Therefore the public hearing tentatively scheduled on September 28, 2009 is hereby cancelled.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1678 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1678

  To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that public 
ceremonies for the admission of new citizens shall be conducted solely 
                              in English.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 18 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

Mr. Faircloth (for himself, Mr. Exon, Mr. Durenberger, Mr. Simpson, Mr. 
 Gregg, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Helms, Mr. Craig, Mr. Thurmond, and 
 Mr. Stevens) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that public 
ceremonies for the admission of new citizens shall be conducted solely 
                              in English.

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

SECTION 1. ENGLISH LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT FOR CEREMONIES FOR ADMISSION OF 
              NEW CITIZENS.

    (a) Requirement.--Section 337(d) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1448(d)) is amended by adding at the end ``All public 
ceremonies in which the oath of allegiance is administered pursuant to 
this section shall be conducted solely in the English language.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

     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 on Form 10-K of New Visual Corporation (the
"Company") for the year ended October 31, 2003 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Brad Ketch, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

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


Dated: Janaury __, 2004

/s/ Brad Ketch
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer


A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS STATEMENT REQUIRED
BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO NEW VISUAL CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED
BY NEW VISUAL CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1777

AN ACT

To extend the suspended implementation of certain

purposes.stores in the food stamp program, and for otherrequirements for the participation of retail fooddian reservations, to suspend certain eligibilityrequirements of the food stamp program on In-
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1777

AN ACT

To extend the suspended implementation of certain requirements of the food stamp program on Indian reservations,

to suspend certain eligibility requirements for the participation of retail food stores in the food stamp program,

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,
2

S 1777 ES

1 SECTION 1. REPORTING AND STAGGERED ISSUANCE FOR

2 HOUSEHOLDS ON RESERVATIONS.

3 Section 908(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Conserva4 tion, and Trade Act Amendments of 1991 (Public Law

5 102–237; 7 U.S.C. 2015 note and 7 U.S.C. 2016 note)

6 is amended by striking ‘‘January 31, 1994’’ both places

7 it appears and inserting ‘‘March 15, 1994’’.

8 SEC. 2. CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN RETAIL

9 FOOD STORES.

10 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during

11 the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act

12 and ending on March 15, 1994, an establishment or

13 house-to-house trade route that is otherwise authorized to

14 accept and redeem coupons under the Food Stamp Act

15 of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) on the date of enactment

16 of this Act may not be disqualified from participation in

17 the food stamp program solely because the establishment

18 or trade route does not meet the definition of ‘‘retail food

19 store’’ under section 3(k)(1) of such Act (7 U.S.C.

20 2012(k)(1)).

Passed the Senate November 22, 1993.

Attest:

Secretary.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**661 CA 12-02396** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JAMES ADAMS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SUPERINTENDENT BOLLINIER, FIVE POINTS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

JAMES ADAMS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Seneca County (Dennis F. Bender, A.J.), dated July 5, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied and dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination that he violated a prison disciplinary rule. Supreme Court properly denied the petition. Inasmuch as petitioner has served the entirety of the imposed 30-day penalty, his contention that the penalty was unlawful is moot ( see Matter of Ellison v Coughlin , 191 AD2d 778, 778-779), and we conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply ( cf. id. at 779; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714- 715). Petitioner’s contention that the absence of the hearing transcript precluded the court’s meaningful review is not preserved for our review and, in any event, is without merit ( see Matter of Sessoms v Commissioner of Correctional Servs. , 63 AD3d 1400, 1400). We reject petitioner’s further contention that the absence of the hearing transcript from the record on appeal prevents this Court from conducting a meaningful appellate review, inasmuch as the missing transcript “is not relevant to the issues before us” ( Matter of Gold v Masse , 256 AD2d 981, 981-982, lv denied 93 NY2d 803; see Matter of Borrero v Goord , 268 AD2d 853, 854).

Entered: June 13, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Warmann E. Dipoumbi, Appellant, v New York City Police Department et al., Respondents.

[51 NYS3d 872]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered March 8, 2016, which, after the submission of trial memoranda and oral argument, dismissed the complaint without trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff has conceded the nonviability of his claim for prima facie tort.

Plaintiff’s remaining claims were barred by the doctrine of *468res judicata (regardless of whether the state or federal tests are applied), as they were dismissed on the merits in a prior federal action *(see Dipoumbi v City of New York,*2011 WL 5966461, 2011 US Dist LEXIS 137206 [SD NY, Nov. 28, 2011, No. 09 Civ 10162 (KBF) (DCF)]; *Insurance Co. of State of Pa. v HSBC Bank USA,*10 NY3d 32, 38 [2008]; *Matter of People v Applied Card Sys., Inc.,*11 NY3d 105, 122 [2008], *cert denied*555 US 1136 [2009]). Plaintiff’s attempted collateral attack on the federal court order is not properly before this Court (see *LaVigna v Capital Cities/ABC,*245 AD2d 75, 76 [1st Dept 1997]).

In addition, plaintiff is bound by his then-counsel’s withdrawal of all claims except prima facie tort earlier in the instant action. Even if counsel acted outside his actual authority, his actions are binding because he had apparent authority to withdraw these claims (see *Hallock v State of New York,*64 NY2d 224, 230-231 [1984]).

All claims except false arrest and imprisonment should additionally be dismissed on the independent ground that they were not asserted in the notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e; *Scott v City of New York,*40 AD3d 408, 409-410 [1st Dept 2007]; *Wanczowski v City of New York,*186 AD2d 397 [1st Dept 1992]). This action does not fall within the “public interest” exception to the notice of claim requirement, as plaintiff alleges misconduct “related only to himself” and seeks “compensation for harm caused to him alone” *(Sager v County of Sullivan,*145 AD3d 1175, 1177 [3d Dept 2016]; *accord Mills v County of Monroe, 59*NY2d 307, 312 [1983], *cert denied*464 US 1018 [1983]).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.
2017-1584.

#### OneWest Bank, FSB v. Wheeler.

Medina App. No. 16CA0026-M, 2017-Ohio-7925. On motion to stay. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
#### Morales v Avalon Bay Communities, Inc.

1st Dept: 140 AD3d 533

denied
|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                  
|View History:                                                   
|                                                                
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to India (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                
|                                                                
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to India (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2,873   | 12,542  | 3,004   | 0       | 0      | 0      | 17,462 | 20,919 | 57,634 | 91,481
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 124,402 | 196,218 | 122,518 | 164,325 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1913

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1994

Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

AN ACT

To extend certain compliance dates for pesticide safety

training and labeling requirements.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1913 RFH

1 SECTION. 1. COMPLIANCE DATES FOR PESTICIDE SAFETY

2 REQUIREMENTS.

3 (a) WORKER PROTECTION STANDARDS.—

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—The compliance date for

5 provisions of the worker protection standard set

6 forth in part 170.5(c) of subchapter E of chapter I

7 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, due to be8 come effective on April 15, 1994, shall be January

9 1, 1995.

10 (2) PESTICIDE SAFETY TRAINING.—Not later

11 than September 23, 1994, the Administrator of the

12 Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in

13 this section as the ‘‘Administrator’’) shall—

14 (A) develop and distribute pesticide safety

15 training materials that convey, at a minimum,

16 the information referred to in section

17 170.230(c)(4) of such title; and

18 (B) assist the appropriate Federal, State,

19 and tribal agencies in implementing pesticide

20 safety training programs required under section

21 170 of such title.

22 (b) LABELING REQUIREMENTS.—

23 (1) ENFORCEMENT.—

24 (A) IN GENERAL.—During the period end25 ing on January 1, 1995, the labeling require26 ments for pesticides and devices set forth in
3

•S 1913 RFH

1 subpart K of part 156 of subchapter E of chap2 ter I of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations,

3 due to become effective on April 21, 1994, may

4 be enforced only—

5 (i) in a State that has established a

6 worker protection program with respect to

7 pesticides and devices as of the date of en8 actment of this Act; and

9 (ii) for the purpose of enforcing a

10 State program referred to in clause (i).

11 (B) EQUIVALENCY.—During the period

12 ending on January 1, 1995, each worker pro13 tection program referred to in subparagraph

14 (A)(i) shall be considered to meet the require15 ments of the worker protection standard set

16 forth in part 170 of such subchapter. After

17 such date, the Administrator shall reassess

18 whether the program meets the standard.

19 (2) NOTIFICATION OF PURCHASERS.—Begin20 ning on April 22, 1994, each registrant of pesticides

21 shall provide information for point-of-sale notifica22 tion to inform purchasers of pesticides that the ap23 plicable compliance date for the labeling require24 ments referred to in paragraph (1)(A) is January 1,

25 1995.
4

•S 1913 RFH

1 (c) EXISTING AUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding the

2 foregoing provisions, the existing authority of the Environ3 mental Protection Agency to enforce existing label require4 ments shall not be affected.

Passed the Senate March 9 (legislative day, February 22), 1994.

Attest: WALTER J. STEWART,

Secretary.
2016-1710.

#### Snyder v. Grant.

Cuyahoga App. No. 103796, 2016-Ohio-5247. Reported at 149 Ohio St.3d 1432, 2017-Ohio-4396, 76 N.E.3d 1208. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

O’Donnell, J., dissents.
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Cove Point, MD Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to France (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Cove Point, MD Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to France (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 7.21   | 6.85  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.98   | 7.08   | 10.32  | 6.28   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
# DLA delivers produce to Egyptian port, expands support in Red Sea

/ Published Feb. 25, 2019
KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany, 
The Navy’s Combined Task Force 53 sought more delivery options to support vessels operating in the Red Sea. When CTF-53 told the Defense Logistics Agency about the need, they specifically wanted to use the commercial port in Safaga, 515 kilometers southeast of Cairo, Egypt. 

At the time of the task force’s request, however, DLA didn’t have a local source in Egypt from which to procure food for delivery to Safaga. So the team at DLA Troop Support Europe & Africa went to work to find one. 

CTF-53 provides logistical support to the U.S. 5th Fleet and coalition forces in the Red Sea, delivering passengers, mail, cargo, ammunition and fuel via land, air and sea. And DLA has supported CTF-53 with food to replenish those forces, but food was primarily delivered from the Subsistence prime vendor in Bahrain.

One of the first efforts to procure goods for delivery to Safaga was for fresh fruit and vegetables, said Air Force Capt. Matthew Thorne, contracting officer at DLA Troop Support Europe & Africa. Thorne started from scratch by trying to make contact with every produce vendor in Egypt he could find. 

After the contracting process was completed, an agreement was set with a vendor in Cairo. Working out of Kaiserslautern, Germany and one hour behind Cairo, Thorne said he was easily able to coordinate the vendor’s first delivery to CTF-53 logisticians at the port.

That first delivery was made Feb. 20 and included crates full of lettuce, watermelon, tomatoes, bananas, pineapples, broccoli and murcott oranges. 

“The delivery is more than a truck of fresh fruit and vegetables,” said Army Lt. Col. Sherdrick Rankin, DLA Troop Support Europe & Africa commander. “This effort brings a new capability to the Navy in the (U.S. Central Command) area of operations and expands support in the strategic waters of the Red Sea.”

It was a team effort, Thorne said. The Customer Facing team at DLA Troop Support Europe & Africa first gathered CTF-53’s request for delivery in Safaga. And Thorne’s contracting team coordinated the blanket purchase agreement with the Subsistence supply chain at DLA Troop Support in Philadelphia. 

“This is a great example of what we can make happen when we work as a team,” Thorne said. “And it will take the whole team to make sure this and other partnerships in Egypt remain efficient and effective for the warfighter.”

DLA Troop Support Europe & Africa is also working to partner with dairy and bakery vendors in Egypt to support CTF-53 with deliveries to Safaga.
|                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                               
|View History:                                                                                      
|                                                                                                   
|Indiana Natural Gas % of Total Residential Consumers Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|Indiana Natural Gas % of Total Residential Consumers Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 4      | 5      | 6     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 5      | 6      | 5      | 5      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 4      | 4      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-7909.

#### Chavez-Ibarra *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.