alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. 2073

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

An Act

To designate the Warren B. Rudman United States Courthouse, the Jamie L.

Whitten Federal Building, and the William H. Natcher Federal Building and

United States Courthouse.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WARREN B. RUDMAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse to be constructed in Concord, New Hampshire, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Warren B. Rudman United States Courthouse’’.

(b) LEGAL REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to

the United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall

be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Warren B. Rudman United

States Courthouse’’.

SEC. 2. JAMIE L. WHITTEN FEDERAL BUILDING.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 14th Street and Independence

Avenue, Southwest, in Washington, District of Columbia, shall be

known and designated as the ‘‘Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building’’.

(b) LEGAL REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to

the Federal building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed

to be a reference to the ‘‘Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building’’.

SEC. 3. WILLIAM H. NATCHER FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED

STATES COURTHOUSE.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United States

courthouse located at 242 East Main Street in Bowling Green,

Kentucky, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘William H.

Natcher Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.
S. 2073—2

(b) LEGAL REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to

the Federal building and United States courthouse referred to in

subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘William

H. Natcher Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16224]


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

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION


Advisory Committee on Preservation Meeting

    Notice is hereby given that the National Archives Advisory 
Committee on Preservation will meet Tuesday, August 11, 1998, from 9 
a.m. to 4 p.m. in lecture room A of the National Archives at College 
Park, 8601 Adelphi Rd., College Park, MD 20740-6001.
    The agenda for the meeting will be Charters reencasement needs and 
reencasement design concept.
    This meeting will be open to the public. For further information, 
contact Alan Calmes at (301) 713-7403.

    Dated: June 12, 1998.
John W. Carlin,
Archivist of the United States.
[FR Doc. 98-16224 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet and statement of operations as of and for
the period ending January 1, 2000 for Grove Holdings LLC and subsidiaries, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                          14,075
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  130,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,457)
<INVENTORY>                                    208,355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               362,685
<PP&E>                                         270,978
<DEPRECIATION>                                (65,356)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 848,593
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          204,651
<BONDS>                                        287,271
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   848,593
<SALES>                                        383,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               383,022
<CGS>                                          317,543
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  317,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                64,066
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,151
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,724)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          302
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,422)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 32

                          CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO
                       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 Quarterly Report of AMERIGROUP Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Jeffrey L. McWaters, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies to the best of his knowledge, and E. Paul Dunn, Jr., as Chief
Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of the Company, hereby certifies
to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the
Company.


-------------------------------------
Jeffrey L. McWaters
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Date: November ____, 2005


-------------------------------------
E. Paul Dunn, Jr.
Executive Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer
Date: November ____, 2005

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# Mutual aid agreement between regional first responders critical during emergency events

/ Published July 20, 2022
RICHMOND, Va., 
A warm, mid-morning summer day quickly turned into a scary hazardous material nightmare for the children and parents enjoying a fun and relaxing day at a community swimming pool in Chesterfield County, Virginia. 

A strange odor at the pool, which according to the Chesterfield County Fire Marshal’s office was caused by a malfunctioning chemical pump that flooded the pool system with too much pool chemical, resulted in Chesterfield County, Virginia, Fire and Emergency Medical Services personnel being called to the pool to investigate.

Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond emergency personnel from Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia were also requested to respond through a mutual aid agreement.  

DLA Installation Management Richmond Fire Chief Don Rodgers said mutual aid agreements are reciprocal agreements between different agencies where they both share resources during emergencies.

Rodgers said the DLA department on DSCR has an agreement with Chesterfield County Fire and Emergency Medical Services to respond to emergencies within the county if requested, and that Chesterfield Fire and EMS will respond to an emergency on DSCR when requested. DSCR is physically located in Chesterfield County.

DLA Installation Management Richmond Fire and EMS is also part a statewide mutual aid agreement to respond, if requested, for large scale disasters or emergencies anywhere in the Commonwealth.

Rodgers said they have a great relationship with their counterparts in the county. Fire and Emergency Services personnel train multiple times a year with Chesterfield County Fire and EMS on DSCR and vice versa. 

“While we hope we never need them, it’s nice to know when called, they will respond and help support our operations on DSCR.” Rodgers said.
# C_2013325EN.01001001.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Oviedo lodged on 23 July 2013 — Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo

(Case C-416/13)

2013/C 325/16

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mario Vital Pérez

Applicant:

Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Oviedo

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do Articles 2(2), 4(1) and 6(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, (2) and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, inasmuch as they prohibit all discrimination on grounds of age, preclude the fixing, in a notice of competition issued by a municipality expressly applying a regional law of a Member State, of a maximum age of 30 for access to the post of local police officer?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

1

(2)  OJ 2000 L 364, p. 1.

2

---
# C_2013226EN.01000702.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală v Cătălin Ienciu

(Case C-313/13)

(2013/C 226/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală

Applicant:

Defendant: Cătălin Ienciu

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

If a vendor has been reclassified as a taxable person for VAT purposes and the consideration for (price of) the supply of the immovable property has been determined by the parties, without any reference to VAT, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount is:

1

| (a) | the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or

| (b) | the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties?

---

(1)  Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
No. 09-11509.

#### Juan Villasana, Jr., Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 885, 131 S. Ct. 212,

178 L. Ed. 2d 127,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7007.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fifth Appellate District, denied.
No. 09-1492.

#### Missouri, Petitioner v. Robert R. Brooks.

562 U.S. 948, 131 S. Ct. 159,

178 L. Ed. 2d 243,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7848.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis *244granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.

Same case below, 304 S.W.3d 130.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 209 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 209

  To provide for full statutory wage adjustments for prevailing rate 
                   employees, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 26 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

Mr. Pell (for himself and Ms. Mikulski) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for full statutory wage adjustments for prevailing rate 
                   employees, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prevailing Wage Rate Adjustment 
Reform Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. WAGE RATES.

    Without regard to any other provision of law limiting the amounts 
payable--
            (1) to a prevailing rate employee defined under section 
        5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code;
            (2) to an employee covered by section 5348 of such title; 
        or
            (3) to any other employee subject to section 616 of the 
        Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations 
        Act, 1993, Public Law 102-393; 106 Stat. 1768;
such employees shall be paid, beginning on the effective date of each 
annual wage survey adjustment in the region after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, wages as determined and established in 
accordance with the provisions of subchapter IV of chapter 53, title 5, 
United States Code.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2013298EN.01000301.xml

| 12.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 16 July 2013 — Vasiliki Balazs v Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj

(Case C-401/13)

2013/C 298/03

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance: Vasiliki Balazs

Applicant at first instance:

Defendant at first instance: Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj

Defendant at first instance:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope a bilateral agreement which two Member States entered into before the date on which that regulation became applicable and by which the two states agreed to the termination of obligations relating to social security benefits owed by one state to nationals of the other state who had been political refugees in the territory of the first state and who have been repatriated to the territory of the second state, in exchange for a payment by the first state of a lump sum for the payment of pensions and to cover periods during which social security contributions were paid in the first Member State?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).

1

---
# C_2013367EN.01002401.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 September 2013 — Dimensione Direct Sales srl, Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA

(Case C-516/13)

2013/C 367/42

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dimensione Direct Sales srl, Michele Labianca

Applicants:

Defendant: Knoll International SpA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the distribution right under Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) include the right to offer the original or copies of the work to the public for sale?
  If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the distribution right under Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) include the right to offer the original or copies of the work to the public for sale?

1

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | Does the right to offer the original or copies of the work to the public for sale include not only contractual offers, but also advertising measures? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the right to offer the original or copies of the work to the public for sale include not only contractual offers, but also advertising measures?

| 3. | Is the distribution right infringed even if no purchase of the original or copies of the work takes place on the basis of the offer? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the distribution right infringed even if no purchase of the original or copies of the work takes place on the basis of the offer?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167, p. 10).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED FEBRUARY 29,
2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-29-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         13,780
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,780
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 40,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,436
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       817,473
<OTHER-SE>                                     (884,129)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   40,780
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               200,259
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (200,259)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (200,259)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (200,259)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)



</TABLE>
No. 10-5471.

#### Gustavo McKenzie, Petitioner v. Edmund G. Brown, Warden.

562 U.S. 923, 131 S. Ct. 304,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7233.

178 L. Ed. 2d 198,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 689.
#### In the Matter of David Lawrence Ganje, an Attorney.

[51 NYS3d 905]

Per Curiam.

David Lawrence Ganje was admitted to practice by this Court in 1990 and lists a business address in the City of Albany with the Office of Court Administration. Ganje now seeks leave to resign from the New York bar for nondiseiplinary reasons *(see*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [a]). The Attorney Grievance Committee for *1472the Third Judicial Department advises that it does not oppose Ganje’s application.

Upon reading the affidavit of Ganje sworn to November 2, 2016, and upon reading the correspondence in response by the Chief Attorney for the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined that Ganje is eligible to resign for nondisciplinary reasons, we grant his application and accept his resignation.

Garry, J.P., Rose, Clark, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that David Lawrence Ganje’s application for permission to resign is granted and his nondisciplinary resignation is accepted; and it is further ordered that David Lawrence Ganje’s name is hereby stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court *(see generally*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [b]); and it is further ordered that David Lawrence Ganje shall, within 30 days of the date of this decision, surrender to the Office of Court Administration any Attorney Secure Pass issued to him.