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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3170 

To prohibit the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce, 

or importation into the United States of any crib bumper, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 10, 2019 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, and Mr. RUSH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce, or importation into the United States 

of any crib bumper, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe Cribs Act of 

5 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SALE OF CRIB BUMPERS. 

7 (a) PROHIBITION ON THE SALE OF CRIB BUMP8 ERS.—Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the 

9 date of enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3170 IH

1 person to manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribute 

2 in commerce, or import into the United States any crib 

3 bumper. 

4 (b) TREATMENT OF VIOLATION.—A violation of sub5 section (a) shall be treated as a violation of section 

6 19(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 

7 2068(a)(1)). 

8 (c) CRIB BUMPER DEFINED.—In this section, the 

9 term ‘‘crib bumper’’— 

10 (1) means any material that is intended to 

11 cover the sides of a crib to prevent injury to any crib 

12 occupant from impacts against the side of a crib or 

13 to prevent partial or complete access to any openings 

14 in the sides of a crib to prevent a crib occupant from 

15 getting any part of the body entrapped in any open16 ing; and 

17 (2) includes a padded crib bumper, a supported 

18 and unsupported vinyl bumper guard, a mesh crib 

19 liner, and vertical crib slat covers. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
**DoD 4000.25-1-M**

****

*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

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

*Change 13*

**AP7.11. APPENDIX 7.11**

**FUND CODES**

AP7.11.1.  Fund codes (located in rp 52-53 of transactions) are two-position alpha/numeric codes used with the Service or Agency code of the billed office to designate the billing method (interfund or noninterfund).  When interfund billing is indicated, the fund code also indicates the fund account to be charged (disbursed) or credited (refunded).  The fund code to fund account conversion is prescribed in the MILSBILLS procedures fund code appendix of DLM 4000.25, Volume 4, Finance.

AP7.11.2.  An additional use for the fund code is to indicate the DoDAAC of the “bill-to” office when the Signal Code is C or L.  The conversion of fund code to billed office DoD  activity address code (DoDAAC) conversion is prescribed in the fund code appendix of DLM 4000.25, Volume 4, Finance.

AP7.11.3.  Requisitions submitted to DoD activities and the Government Services Administration (GSA) shall always contain a fund code, unless the materiel requested has been offered without reimbursement, in which case the signal code (rp 51) shall be D or M (free issue) and the fund code shall have no meaning to the requisition processing point. 

1

APPENDIX 2.11

AP7.11-1

APPENDIX 7.11
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23



           Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Esterline Technologies Corporation of our report dated December 10, 2004,
except as to the restatement discussed in Note 2, as to which the date is
December 7, 2005, included in the 2004 Annual Report to Shareholders of
Esterline Technologies Corporation.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Esterline
Technologies Corporation listed in Item 15(a). This schedule is the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule
referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements
taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set
forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 333-43843, No. 33-58375, No. 333-62650, No. 333-85440 and Form
S-3 No. 333-117905) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Option Plan, Non-Employee
Directors' Stock Compensation Plan, Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Option Plan,
the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Esterline Technologies Corporation and
the $300,000,000 Shelf Registration Statement of our report dated December 10,
2004, except as to the restatement discussed in Note 2, as to which the date is
December 7, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Esterline Technologies Corporation for the fiscal
year ended October 29, 2004.

                                          Ernst & Young LLP

Seattle, Washington
December 30, 2005
No. 10-10962.

#### Virgil H. Sutherland, Petitioner v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

565 U.S. 859, 132 S. Ct. 195,

181 L. Ed. 2d 102,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6137.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 407 Fed. Appx. 699.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00296-CR

WILLIE MAJORS, III,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 413th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. F49961

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Willie Majors, III is attempting to appeal his conviction which occurred on July 28, 

2016. Majors’s counsel, however, was deployed on active duty with the United States Air 

Force in August and was unable to arrange for a notice of appeal to be filed with the trial 

court. Rather, he arranged only for a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal 

to be filed with this Court, which was filed on September 9, 2016. 

Majors’s notice of appeal was due on August 27, 2016. See TEX.R. APP.P. 26.2(a)(1). 

No notice of appeal has been filed. A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke our
Majors v. State Page 2

jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Without one, we 

have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. 

Even if we construed the motion for extension of time as the notice of appeal

improperly filed in this Court rather than with the trial court clerk, see TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(c), we would still not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Although the 

motion/notice was filed within 15 days of the last day allowed for filing a notice of 

appeal, see TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, we would still need a second document, filed within that 

same 15 day window, to serve as the motion for extension of time to file the notice of 

appeal. Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522 (“A court of appeals may grant an extension of time to 

file notice of appeal if the notice is filed within fifteen days after the last day allowed and, 

within the same period, a motion is filed in the court of appeals reasonably explaining 

the need for the extension of time.”). We do not have that second document. When a 

notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen-day period but no timely motion for extension 

of time is filed, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal in any manner other than by 

dismissing it. Id. at 523. Likewise, when a motion for extension of time to file a notice of 

appeal is filed within the 15 day period but no notice of appeal is filed within the same 

15 day period, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal in any manner other than by 

dismissing it. See id.
Majors v. State Page 3

Although counsel has been deployed on active duty which prevented counsel 

from filing the appropriate documents to initiate the appeal, we have no choice but to 

dismiss Majors’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.1

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Motion dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 21, 2016

Do not publish 

[CR25]

 

1 Majors’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal is likewise dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7570

DWIGHT DAVID LEWIS, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

KEITH W. DAVIS, Warden, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (7:09-cv-00313-jlk-mfu) 

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009 

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dwight David Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Dwight David Lewis seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by 

the district court is debatable or wrong and that any 

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise 

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently 

reviewed the record and conclude that Lewis has not made the 

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
No. 11-111.

#### Elmer A. Kobobel, et al., Petitioners v. Colorado, et al.

565 U.S. 882, 132 S. Ct. 252,

181 L. Ed. 2d 145,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5755.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 249 P.3d 1127.
Order filed March 26, 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00649

- CV

____________ DAVID L. GLASSEL , Appellant

V.

SEAMLESS OPERATING G ROUP, LLC INDIVIDUAL LY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHA LF OF CHEMICAL FREE SOLUTIONS, LLC., AND C EDAR OIL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 41601



### O R D E R

Appellant’ s brief was due March 2, 2015

. No brief or motion for further

extension of time has been filed.

Unle ss appellant files a brief with this court on or before April 20, 2015 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PocketSpec Technologies Inc. (the
Company") on Form 10-QSBSB for the period ending July 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I. Cynthia Kettl, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The 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 fully presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          or the Company.

September 15, 2003

                                                     By: /s/  Cynthia Kettl
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5   
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998 
<CASH>                                         740,215
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 
<INVENTORY>                                          0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               759,740
<PP&E>                                         304,280 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 219,627 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 985,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          531,340
<BONDS>                                              0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                       507,293 
<OTHER-SE>                                    (155,740)  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   985,914
<SALES>                                              0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,069 
<CGS>                                                0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,284,101  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,525 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,281,032)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0  
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,281,032)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.03) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03) 
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014315EN.01005502.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/55

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Gopack v Commission

(Case T-235/13) (1)

1

((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 315/93

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gopack (Manosque, France) (represented by: J. M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid Nouraï, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Gopack is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Gopack is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
DISPOSITION SERVICES
74 WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH
BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN 49037-3092

J422 March 30, 2015

Dear Customers:

DLA Disposition was recently advised that the U. S. Department of Treasury, Financial
Management Service (FMS) has released policy statement A-2014-4 to announce lowering the
limit of credit card transactions.

This memorandum advises our sale customers of the policy change which will lower the
dollar value limit to collect revenue using credit cards from $49,999.99 to $24,999.99. The
revised policy will become effective on June 1, 2015.

Also as a reminder, customers may not split individual transactions greater than
$24,999.00 into two (2) or more transactions over one (1) or multiple days. Splitting a
transaction violates the credit card network and FMS rules. For a customer that attemps multiple
transactions on the same day with the same credit card, those transactions that cause the total
charge to exceed the limit of $24,999.00 will be rejected.

Thank you for your cooperation with this policy change and please contact your Sales
Contracting Officer with any questions.

Sincerely,

HAE)
Chief, Sales Branch
Customer Support
**DEFENSE LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS**

**FINANCE PROCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE CONFERENCE**

**AGENDA**

***Topics: DLMS Finance & Web Fund Code Training; Fund Code Management***
##### 



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 quarterly report of Waste Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), we, David Sutherland-Yoest, Chief Executive Officer, and Mark A. Pytosh,
Chief Financial Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. By:
    
    /s/ DAVID SUTHERLAND-YOESTDavid Sutherland-YoestChief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ MARK A. PYTOSHMark A. PytoshChief Financial Officer
 Date: August 2, 2005
Leading an Anti-Inflammatory 

Lifestyle

Inflammation can cause damage to your 

body’s cells, tissues and organs.

Register for this live webinar on Wednesday, October 11 at 1:00 pm CT to: 

• Examine the connection between diet and mood.

• Review habits that promote an anti-inflammatory lifestyle.

• Identify foods that increase or reduce inflammation.

*All live webinars are recorded and posted on your member website.

B-MP1023E (6/23) ©2023 Magellan Health, Inc.

Visit MagellanAscend.com or call your Employee

Assistance Program at 1-866-580-9046 (TTY 711)

for helpful resources.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37104-37105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18179]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT98-72-000]


Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Refund Report

July 2, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 26, 1998, Northwest Pipeline Corporation 
(Northwest) tendered for filing a report of Gas Research Institute 
(GRI) refunds made to its customers.
    Northwest states that on May 29, 1998 it received a refund from the 
GRI in the amount of $1,100,129, representing an overcollection of the 
1997 GRI Tier 1 funding target level set for Northwest by GRI. On June 
10, 1998, Northwest credited the GRI refund, pro rata, to its eligible 
firm customers who received nondiscounted service during 1997.
    Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon 
Northwest's affected customers and interested state regulatory 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion

[[Page 37105]]

to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before July 9, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18179 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2016419EN.01000201.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Alfredo Rendón Marín v Administración del Estado

(Case C-165/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of a third-country national with a criminal record to reside in a Member State - Parent having sole care of two minor children, who are Union citizens - First child possessing the nationality of the Member State of residence - Second child possessing the nationality of another Member State - National legislation precluding grant of a residence permit to the father because of his criminal record - Refusal of residence capable of resulting in the children being obliged to leave the territory of the European Union))

(2016/C 419/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Alfredo Rendón Marín

Appellant:

Respondent: Administración del Estado

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires a third-country national to be automatically refused the grant of a residence permit on the sole ground that he has a criminal record where he is the parent of a minor child who is a Union citizen and a national of a Member State other than the host Member State and who is his dependant and resides with him in the host Member State.

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the same national legislation which requires a third-country national who is a parent of minor children who are Union citizens in his sole care to be automatically refused the grant of a residence permit on the sole ground that he has a criminal record, where that refusal has the consequence of requiring those children to leave the territory of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

1

---
No. 10-10636.

#### Jon Evan Cearlock, Petitioner v. Illinois.

565 U.S. 842, 132 S. Ct. 155,

181 L. Ed. 2d 70,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5922.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, denied.

Same case below, 402 Ill. App. 3d 1211, 376 Ill. Dec. 797, 1 N.E.3d 130.