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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3173 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3173

  To amend title 10, United States Code, to require that institutions 
 hosting a unit of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps provide 
          instruction in STEM fields, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2019

  Mr. Brown of Maryland (for himself and Ms. Stefanik) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 10, United States Code, to require that institutions 
 hosting a unit of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps provide 
          instruction in STEM fields, 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 ``Promoting STEM in JROTC Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.

    (a) In General.--Section 2031(b)(3) of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended by inserting ``and which includes instruction or 
activities in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics'' after ``duration''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 6
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 6
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 6
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 6
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic 

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of 

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go 

to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 21-BG-198

IN RE BARRY N. FRANK

2019 DDN 194

An Administratively Suspended Member 

of the Bar of the District of Columbia 

Court of Appeals

Bar Registration. No. 371252

BEFORE: Glickman and McLeese, Associate Judges, and Fisher, Senior Judge. 

O R D E R

(FILED – June 17, 2021)

On consideration of the certified order from the state of New York accepting 

respondent’s resignation from the practice of law while he was under disciplinary 

investigation; this court’s April 15, 2021, order suspending respondent pending 

resolution of this matter and directing him to show cause why the functional 

reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed; the statement of 

Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent failed to file a response to 

this court’s order to show cause or his D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g) affidavit, it is 

ORDERED that Barry N. Frank is hereby disbarred from the practice of law 

in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010); In re Fuller, 

930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal 

discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s 

disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully 

complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). 

PER CURIAM
No. 11-5050.

#### John Leonard Corbin, Petitioner v. Franklin J. Tennis, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Rockview, et al.

565 U.S. 887, 132 S. Ct. 263,

181 L. Ed. 2d 154,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5452.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
No. 10-1273.

#### Arkansas, Petitioner v. Antwan Lavan Fowler.

565 U.S. 816, 132 S. Ct. 95,

181 L. Ed. 2d 24,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6770.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.

Same case below, 2010 Ark. 431, 371 S.W.3d 677.
**Exhibit 23****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We have issued our reports dated May 9, 2008 with respect to the consolidated financial statementsand internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Ennis, Inc. on Form10-K for the year ended February 29, 2008. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference ofsaid reports in the Registration Statements of Ennis, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-43087,effective October 7, 1991, File No. 333-58963, effective July 13, 1998, File No. 333-38100,effective May 31, 2000, File No. 333-44624, effective August 28, 2000, and File No. 333-119845,effective October 20, 2004).   /s/ Grant Thornton LLP        Dallas, Texas  May 9, 2008
EXHIBIT 10.63


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated as of July 1, 2014 (this “AMENDMENT”), to the Employment Agreement, dated as of May 18, 2012 (the “EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT”), by and between Motorcar Parts of America, Inc. (“COMPANY”) and Selwyn Joffe, an individual residing at 2687 Cordelia Road, Los Angeles, CA 90049 (“EXECUTIVE”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT to change the SALARY and EMPLOYMENT TERM;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.            Section 2 of the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT  is hereby deleted in its entirety and is hereby replaced with the following:


 


“TERM.  EXECUTIVE’S term of employment under this AGREEMENT shall commence on July 1, 2014 and shall continue for a period through and including July 1, 2019 (the ‘EMPLOYMENT TERM’), unless extended in writing by both parties or earlier terminated pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein.”


 


2.            Section 5(a) of the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence thereof and is hereby replaced with the following:


 


“The COMPANY shall pay EXECUTIVE a base salary (‘SALARY’) of Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000) per year.”


 


3.            Except as amended by this AMENDMENT, the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect.


 


4.            This AMENDMENT may be executed by facsimile signature, in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this AMENDMENT as of date first above written.







	
 

	
THE COMPANY:


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
MOTORCAR PARTS OF AMERICA, INC.


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
By:

	
/s/ Michael M. Umansky


	
 

	
 

	
Name: Michael M. Umansky


	
 

	
 

	
Title: Vice President & General Counsel


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
EXECUTIVE:


	 	 
	
 

	
/s/ Selwyn Joffe


	
 

	
SELWYN JOFFE
No. 11-5461.

#### Robert B. Surles, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 908, 132 S. Ct. 315,

181 L. Ed. 2d 194,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5886.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 424 Fed. Appx. 834.
----

Exhibit 31.2

**CERTIFICATION**

                I, Nicholas Pappas, certify that:

                1.  I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Envirokare Tech, Inc.;

                2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

                3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

                4.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

                a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

                b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                c)     presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

                5.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

                a)     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 22nd, 2005

By: /s/ Nicholas Pappas  ________________________  Name:    Nicholas Pappas  Title:     Chairman and CEO
World TB Day

£25 March 24
No. 11-5844.

#### Addisabeth Pryce, Petitioner v. New Jersey.

565 U.S. 923, 132 S. Ct. 351,

181 L. Ed. 2d 221,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6941.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.
Order entered August 22, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00076-CV

SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY DOLLARS IN UNITED 

STATES CURRENCY, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-00937

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Burns and Justices Molberg and Goldstein

Before the Court are appellant’s August 18, 2022 motion for extension of 

time to file his motion for rehearing and his motion for rehearing. In the motion

for extension of time appellant explains that he did not receive notice of our June 

29, 2022 dismissal opinion and that he did not receive notice that he had “a hearing

to attend to.” According to appellant, the email address he provided to the Court 

was typed into the system incorrectly, and he did not receive our email 
notifications. Our records show that appellant’s email address was incorrect, but 

has now been corrected. 

Under these circumstances, we GRANT appellant’s motion for an out of 

time motion for rehearing and order the motion for rehearing received by the Court 

on August 18, 2022 filed as of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.5. 

We DENY appellant’s motion for rehearing, but on the Court’s own motion, 

we VACATE our opinion and judgment of June 29, 2022 and REINSTATE this 

appeal. Appellant’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order. We 

expressly caution appellant that failure to file his brief within that time will result 

in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 

(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
No. 10-10392.

#### Jennifer Lynn Krieger, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 835, 132 S. Ct. 139,

181 L. Ed. 2d 58,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5695.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 628 F.3d 857.
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-15-0324 FATE: Solid with MP = Dec. >150 °C (M) S = 0.02 mg/L at 25 °C (M) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 °C (E) BP > 400 °C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg; OECD 301B(Mod Sturm CO2 ev): 10-14%/28d. Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo Sorption to soils/sediments = strong PBT Potential: P2B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil through the lungs and skin ( p che m ) and
p oor through the GI tract based on effects seen in the 28-day oral study. There is concern for liver effects based on the results of the 28-day oral study. Low moderate concern. Test Data: N egative in Salmonella and E coli with and without activation N egative for chromosome aberrations in human peripheral lymphocytes, in vitro N egative in an oral micronucleus test in rats In vitro eye irritation test, bovine corneal opacity and permeability test- no prediction on the classification of irritancy can be made In vitro eye irritation test, bovine corneal opacity and permeability test- no prediction on the classification of irritancy can be made In vitro dermal irritation test using reconstructed human epidermis test method – not an irritant Eye irritation study in rabbits – irritation of the conjunctivae; however test material fell out of the eye immediately after releasing the eyelid after instillation of the substance Eye irritation study in rabbits – irritation of the conjunctivae that cleared by 48 hours Acute oral study in rats (2000 mg/kg)

–no deaths, lethargy, hunched posture, p iloerection Acute dermal study in rats (2000 mg/kg)

–no deaths; erythema, fissuring, scabs at site of application 14-day oral range-finding study in rats (500, 1000 mg/kg)

–slight decrease in body weights at 1000 mg/kg; N OAEL = 1000 mg/kg 14-day dermal range-finding test (500, 1000 mg/kg)

–erythema, scales and scabs at site of application in both dose groups; no systemic toxicity 28-day oral study in rats (100, 300, 1000 mg/kg)

–liver effects and reduced body weight gain at 1000 mg/kg; N OAEL = 300 mg/kg

Ecotox :
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 15, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 15, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0001. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. JOSEPH LEROY GRUBBS.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

14SV288
### Evaluation of 2002 Multi -pollutant Platform: Air Toxics, Ozone , and

Particulate Matter Sharon Phillips, Kai Wang, Carey Jang , Norm Possiel , Madeleine Strum, and Tyler Fox Main Contact: Sharon Phillips, Air Quality Modeling Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, MD: D243 - 01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 E - mail: phillips.sharon@epa.gov ABSTRACT An annual 2002 multi -pollutant model application and evaluation study was perfo rmed for the continental United States using a multi - pollutant version of the U.S. EPA’s Community Multi scale Air Quality

(CMAQ) modeling s ys tem at grid resolutions of 36 - km continental U.S. and 12 - km Eastern U.S. The CMAQ multi - pollutant v4.6.1 was deve loped to predict ozone, particulate matter, mercury , and 38 other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) within one model simulation. The focus of this effort is the evaluation of model predictions of toxics species (including metals) and mercury deposition using 2002 measured data. Model evaluation results for ozone, PM 2.5 component species and precursor gases, and deposition of sulfate and nitrate will also be presented. Based on the 36 - km and 12 - km 2002 simulations, sulfate predictions compare very

well with measurements over the summer months in the eastern U.S. where sulfate i s the dominant PM 2.5 species. The model appears to simulate the total nitrate (nitrate PM and nitric acid, HNO 3 ) fairl y well, b ut the partitioning between nitrate PM and HNO 3 lead s to modest scatter in predictions of nitrate PM. Hourly and eight - hour maximum ozone model performance shows good agreement with ambient measurements during the ozone season (May , June, July, August, and September) . Model performance for some non - ubiquitous HAPs shows a general under-prediction tendency . This paper will discuss HAP model performance in terms of: (1) uncertainties in monitoring methods, (2) limited measurements in time and space to characterize ambient concentrations, (3) commensurability i ssues between measurements and model predictions, (4 ) HAP monitoring issues, (3) HAP inventory issues, and/or (4) boundary conditions, emissions, and science uncertainty issues . This paper will also examine model predictions to gain a better understanding of the chemical and phys ical interactions between concentration and deposition of ozone, PM 2.5 component species , toxic species, and precursor gases (including gaseous toxics) as well as their temporal and spatial relationships and the extent that model p erformance varies between the 36 - km versus 12 - km simulations .
# FILED

FEBRUARY

27, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT NASHV ILLE

JERRY RAY BROWN, ) ) Plaintiff/Appella

nt, ) Davidson Law No. 96C-1205

) vs. ) ) Appeal No. 01A01-9702-CV-00049 PHILLIP L. DAVIDSON, ) ) Defendant/Appellee. )

_______________________________________________ __________

_______________________ _ ORDER

___ ______________________________________________________________________ _______ _ Upon consideration of

the petition for rehearing of Plaintiff/Appellant Jerry Ray Brown, the petition is denied. Enter this day of February, 1998.

HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J.

W. FRANK CRAW

FORD, P. J., W.

S.

ALAN E. HIGHERS, J.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 28, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00630-CR

TIRSON PEREZ SIFUENTES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1395543

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea to aggravated sexual assault. In accordance 

with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced 

appellant on June 24, 2014, to confinement for 30 years in the Institutional 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se 

notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. 
2

The trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in 

which the court certified that this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no 

right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is 

included in the record on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports 

the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DLA FORM 1890-1, JAN 2009 PDF (DLA)

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF A CONTRACTING OFFICER

Page 1 of 1

The findings and determinations recorded herein are made pursuant to applicable law and regulations. 1. There is a clear and convincing need to appoint a contracting officer with the ability to perform at the contracting 

officer warrant level specified in block 1.a. for the reasons explained in block 1.b.

1.a. Warrant Level

1.b. Reasons - Include discussion of organizational need, quantity, type and average dollar amount of documents to be obligated as contracting officer, 

and the warrant threshold requested. Additionally, include details on how the candidate's experience and education has prepared him/her to exercise 

sound business judgement to fulfill the responsibilities of this position.

2. CANDIDATE INFORMATION

2.a. Name 2.b. Title 2.c. Series 2.d. Grade

2.e. Name of Contracing Officer that this Candidate is Replacing 2.f. This is a New Position Created as a Result of

2.g. Division/Branch/Section Candidate will Occupy 2.h. Office Symbol

3. A completed DLA Warrant Application Form which identifies the candidate's background is enclosed.

3.a. It was found that (select appropriately)

4. The candidate's current Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450), is on file with the appropriate standards of conduct counselor.

5. The candidate has a security clearance of IT 2 or higher.

6. In addition to the Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive, Laws, Executive Orders, and other applicable regulations, the following additional warrant 

limitations are imposed.

6.a. Dollar Threshold 6.b. Expiration Date of Temporary Appointment

7. IST CHIEF OR EQUIVALENT (Procurement)

Name Signature and Date

8. DIVISION CHIEF OR EQUIVALENT (Procurement) (CONCUR)

Name Signature and Date

9. DIRECTOR OR DEPUTY DIRECTOR (Procurement) (CONCUR)

Name Signature and Date

10. CHIEF OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICE (CCO) (APPROVED)

Name Signature and Date

- this section intentionally left blank -
# C_2014431EN.01001604.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/16

---

Order of the President of the Court of 9 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — Catharina Smets, Franciscus Vereijken v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-279/14) (1)

1

(2014/C 431/26)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

1

---
No. 11-5353.

#### Jose Luna-Ginoveva, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

565 U.S. 903, 132 S. Ct. 300,

181 L. Ed. 2d 183,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5665.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
TIMOTHY WAYNE STEMEN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3453 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed April 20, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge. Timothy Wayne Stemen, pro se.
PER CURIAM.

Appellant's notice of appeal and initial brief are treated as a petition for writ of certiorari and denied. See Dorsey v. State, 30 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
**CH 1**

**DoD 4000.25-2-M**

**CH 1**

**DoD 4000.25-2-M**

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP3.57. APPENDIX 3.57**

**ASSET STATUS REPORTING (BASE, POST, CAMP, AND STATION LEVEL USE)**

**AP3.61-1**

4

**AP3.61-**

AP3.57-1

APPENDIX 3.57