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

[Federal Register: September 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 182)]
[Notices]               
[Page 57457]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21se10-43]                         

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, October 22, 2010.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-23649 Filed 9-17-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
No. 11-6189.

#### Michael Harrison, Petitioner v. Ray Lawler, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al.

565 U.S. 986, 132 S. Ct. 517,

181 L. Ed. 2d 364,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7859.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF DSCP FORM 5117 

MRE Inspection

1. In the heading of the form, enter MRE.

2. Part I, Inspection Activity Information

Inspector – your name and rank

Section – your duty section

District – your district or command

Date of inspection – self-explanatory

Branch – the branch/squad you’re a member of

Region – the region/major command you’re a member of

 

3. Part II, Inspected Unit Information

Installation – location of Unit

Storage location of Rations – self-explanatory

Unit Name – name of unit owning the rations

Rations Received from – the activity/facility/company/ship from which the rations came

4. Part III, Rations Assembler Information

Contract Number – list all contract numbers represented (located on case)

Assembler – located on case

5. Part IV, Inspection Information

Class of Inspection – Self-explanatory

Type of Inspection – Self-explanatory

Type of Inspection Lot – See Section II.B.2

Lot Size – Lot size in Cases/Menus

Lot Information – List all lot numbers represented, to include DOP and lot quantities

6. Part V, Inspection Results

Condition Code – See Section I.G.8

Special Inspection Required – self-explanatory

Storage Condition – self-explanatory

Next Inspection Due – enter the date of the next required inspection

TTI Status – mark the number that the TTI most closely resembles (see Natick, TTI 

Comparator Model 80)

Storage Temperature – mark the temperature range, if known, which the MREs are 

normally stored at
7. Part VI, Sampling Plan

Ration Component (Special Only) - list the nomenclature of items requiring Special 

Inspection only

Defect Table – defect examination tables (C, F, G, and J)

Sampling Table – sampling tables (A, B, D, H, and I)

Defect Class – defect class (i.e. MAJ A, MAJ B, Minor) from sampling tables (A, B, D, 

H, and I)

Sample Size – sample size from sampling tables (A, B, D, H, and I)

Action Number – action numbers from sampling tables (A, B, D, H, and I)

Total Defects – indicate the total number of defects noted for each defect class

Defects By Component Classification – indicate the number of defects noted by type of 

component.

8. Part VII, Nonconformance Summary

Assembler Lot No. – lot number(s) affected

Menu No. – menu number(s) affected

Component & Code – component abbreviation (see table M) and Julian lot code from 

package

Component Processor – Component Contractor Abbreviation (see table L)

Defect Table – Tables C, F, G, or J 

Defect No. – defect number from examination table (C, F, G, or J)

Defect Code – Specific Defect Code (Table K)

Description of Defects/Remarks – short description of defect found

Defect Tally – total number of defects noted by type of component and defect 

classification

9. Part VIII, Narrative Comments – Use this block for descriptive information concerning 

inspections results, storage conditions, insect/pest management, and issue/serviceability 

recommendations to the accountable officer. 

 10. Part VIIII, Signature Block – Self-Explanatory
No. 11-6401.

#### Hector Mario Galindo, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 969, 132 S. Ct. 469,

181 L. Ed. 2d 306,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7582.

October 17, 2011.

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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3521 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to wastewater 

infrastructure workforce development, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2019 

Mr. STANTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with 

respect to wastewater infrastructure workforce development, 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 ‘‘Wastewater Infrastruc5 ture Workforce Investment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE IN7 VESTMENT. 

8 (a) REPORT TO CONGRESS ON PUBLICLY OWNED

9 TREATMENT WORKS WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.—SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:50 Jul 05, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3521.IH H3521

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3521 IH

1 tion 104(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

2 (33 U.S.C. 1251(g)) is amended— 

3 (1) by striking ‘‘manpower’’ each place it ap4 pears and inserting ‘‘workforce’’; and 

5 (2) by amending paragraph (4) to read as fol6 lows— 

7 ‘‘(4) REPORT TO CONGRESS ON PUBLICLY

8 OWNED TREATMENT WORKS WORKFORCE DEVELOP9 MENT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of en10 actment of the Wastewater Infrastructure Workforce 

11 Investment Act, the Administrator shall submit to 

12 the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

13 of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

14 on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 

15 report containing— 

16 ‘‘(A) an assessment of the current and fu17 ture workforce needs for publicly owned treat18 ment works, including an estimate of the num19 ber of future positions needed for such treat20 ment works and the technical skills and edu21 cation needed for such positions; 

22 ‘‘(B) a summary of actions taken by the 

23 Administrator, including Federal investments 

24 under this Act, that promote workforce develop25 ment to address such needs; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3521 IH

1 ‘‘(C) any recommendations of the Adminis2 trator to address such needs.’’. 

3 (b) ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.—Section 604 of the 

4 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1384) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(d) WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE

7 DEVELOPMENT.—A State may reserve each fiscal year up 

8 to 1 percent of the sums allotted to the State under this 

9 section for the fiscal year to carry out workforce develop10 ment, training, and retraining activities described in sec11 tion 104(g).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
No. 11-419.

#### Yiling Zhang, Petitioner v. Lake Elsinore Unified School District, et al.

565 U.S. 1061, 132 S. Ct. 778,

181 L. Ed. 2d 487,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8583.

November 28, 2011.

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

*488Same case below, 410 Fed. Appx. 53.
No. 10-6303.

#### Beaux Gordon Sines, Petitioner v. J. M. Wilner, Warden.

562 U.S. 1182, 131 S. Ct. 997,

178 L. Ed. 2d 832,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 765.

January 18, 2011.

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

*833Same case below, 609 F.3d 1070.
October 16, 2018

What is sexual assault? 

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the 

recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, 

forcible sodomy, fondling or groping, and attempted rape. This is not all inclusive and said actions may not 

meet elements of the local criminal statute. Support and advocacy will be provided for these offenses. 

 Contact the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) - 24/7

DLA SAPR Hotline 1-800-841-0937 or DSN 392-767-1133

 Encourage your co-worker to seek help and information from the SARC.

 DLA employees are strongly encouraged to report all incidents of sexual assault to

the SARC.

 Take Care of the Victim’s Needs

 Ensure the SARC speaks with the victim (allow privacy to protect confidentiality).

 Do not question the victim.

 Remind the victim not to eat, drink, use the restroom or do anything that may disrupt evidence

collection.

 Please remember the medical well-being and safety of the victim are priority. A victim can get

medical treatment and still maintain their confidential options.

 Remember the following:

 No two people respond to or cope with sexual assault in the same way. How a person presents to

you is not an indication of whether or not a sexual assault has occurred.

 Be aware of your own moral/personal biases and keep them in check. Comments related to victim’s

style of dress, drinking activities or personal choices are irrelevant and may severely impair the

healing process.

 What you say/how you act may make the difference in whether or not the victim proceeds with the

case and may have a significant impact on how the victim continues with recovery. 

Communication Guidelines for Dealing with Victims of Sexual Assault

If you are approached by someone and you believe they may disclose a sexual assault to you, it’s okay to stop 

them and make them aware of the options available to them. For example, you can say the following: 

“Let me stop you for a moment. I want you to know I’m here for you and ready to listen if you need 

help, but I don’t want you to lose any options that may be available to you by disclosing too much 

information to me at this time. If you think you might like to speak with the Sexual Assault Response 

Coordinator before we continue this discussion, I can put you in touch with him/her immediately. 

Just know that if you disclose a sexual assault to me, I may have to report that assault to a supervisor 

or law enforcement.”

When your co-worker/friend/peer has been

Sexually Assaulted, what do you do?
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $7.34 CWT 0.965 $7.0831

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.3492 LB 3.5 $8.2222

Class I Price $15.3053

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $7.14 CWT 0.965 $6.8901

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.3736 LB 3.5 $8.3076

Class I Price $15.1977

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.1076

(4) Price change per gallon $0.0093

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.0046

Price change per quart $0.0023

Price change per pint $0.0012

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.0008

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.0007

Price change per half pint $0.0006

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.01

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.00

Price adjustment per quart $0.00

Price adjustment per pint $0.00

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.00

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price adjustment per half pint $0.00

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

is not equal to or greater than +/-$0.0100 (See paragraph (f)(1) of the clause). 

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positives or increases. 

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: June 4, 2017
# I 

# ‘7f2‘1/7?

ECT0H 24

— SAMPLINGAND TESTING•- RECORDS AND REPORTS

24.1 Any person operating any article, machine. equipment, or other contrivance forwhich registration is required by these Regulations, shall permit the Control Officer, or his agent to Install and maintain sampling arid testing facilities as are reasonable and necessary formeasurementofemissions ofair contaminants. Where existing facilities for sampling or testing are inadequate, the Control Officermay, inwriting, require the Registrant to provide and maintain access to, such facilities as 

### are reasonably necessary for sampling and testing purposes by the Control Officer,orhis authorized agent, in order to secure Information that will disclose thenature, extent, quantity, or degree of_air contaminants discharged Into the atmosphere from the article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance described In the Registration formor records.
21,.2 The owner or operatorofany point source as defined in Title 40 CFR, Part 51.1, Paragraph (k), published In the Federal RegisteronNovember 25, 1971, shall maintain records ofthenature and amounts ofemissions from such source and/or any other,information as may be deemed necessary by the Control Office! todeterminewhether such source Is in compliancewith applicable emission limltations’orothercontrol measures. 24.3 The information recorded shall be summarized and reported to the Control Officeron forms furnished by the Control Officerand shall be submitted 

### as part ofthe registration renewal requirements as provided in Subsection 15.5 of these Regulations. 24.1, Information rec,rid by r or operator and copies of t .p3rts submitted to the ControlOffIcer shall be retained by the owner or’operatorfor two years after the date on ‘dilch the pertinent report Is submitted.

# ‘7/3L/)

24.5 Emission data obtained pursuant to these Regula tions from owners oroperators of stationary

sources to which ar quality standards shall apply shall be correlated with applicable emission limi tations and other control measures and will be available to the public during normal business hours at the District Health Certer, 625 Shadow Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada 

### 89106. 

# at
Finamore. Robert (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Artem Tarasenko [artem@volga-dnepr.us] 

Monday, February 14, 2011 2:51 PM 

Finamore, Robert (OST) 

Cc: Kruger, Brett (OST); Wellington, George (OST); Ames, Angelia (OST); Brown, Catherine 

(OST); colon@volga-dnepr.us 

Subject: RE: Cabotage Application Request / Comment Tracking Number 80bde168 (2 x HSV-KXMR / 

15-17 FEB) 

Attachments: Volga Dnepr 2011-0023.pdf 

Bob, Brett, Angelia: 

Reference the enclosed Cabotage Approval (Docket ooT-OST-2011-0023) granting Volga-Dnepr the 

authority to operate two (2) one-way all cargo charter flights between Huntsville, Alabama 

(HSV) and Cape Canaveral AFS, FL (KXMR) on around February 15-17, 2011, on behalf of United 

Launch Alliance, please be advised of the following: 

Per request from United Launch Alliance the second flight between Huntsville, Alabama (HSV) 

and Cape Canaveral AFS, FL (KXMR) has been delayed for 24 hours, and now is to be performed 

on February 18, 2011. Please confirm validity of your Cabotage Approval for the extended 

period, i.e. 

from February, 15 through February 18, 2011. 

Best regards, 

Artem 

Artem Tarasenko 

Operations Manager 

VolgaDnepr-Unique Air Cargo Inc. 

The Woodlands, TX 

Tel: +1 (832) 585-8611 

Fax: +1 (832) 585-8618 

Cell: +1 (713) 349-3388 

E-mail: artem@volga-dnepr.us 

-----Original Message-----

From: Robert.Finamore@dot.gov [mailto:Robert.Finamore@dot.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:36 PM 

To: artem@volga-dnepr.us 

Cc: cmillen@volga-dnepr.us; ops@volga-dnepr.us 

Subject: RE: Cabotage Application Request / Comment Tracking Number 80bde168 

(2 x HSV-KXMR / 15-17 FEB) 

Please see attached approval of the referenced request. 

Regards, 

Bob 

-----Original Message-----

From: Artem Tarasenko [mailto:artem@volga-dnepr.us] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 12:36 PM 

To: 'Artem Tarasenko' 

1 

(Jl 
Artem Tarasenko 

Operations Manager 

VolgaDnepr-Unique Air Cargo Inc. 

The Woodlands, TX 

Tel: +1 (832) 585-8611 

Fax: +1 (832) 585-8618 

Cell: +1 (713) 349-3388 

E-mail: artem@volga-dnepr.us 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. 

For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. 

For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. 

For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 

3
| 1. | Infosmart      Group Limited, a British Virgin Islands company (“Infosmart BVI”) – wholly      owned subsidiary of the Company                       |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Portabello      Global Limited, a British Virgin Island company – wholly owned subsidiary      of Infosmart BVI                                                  |
| 3. | Info      Smart International Enterprises Limited, a Hong Kong company (“Info Smart      International”) – wholly owned subsidiary of Infosmart  BVI |
| 4. | Infoscience      Media Global Limited, a British Virgin Islands company – wholly owned      subsidiary of Infosmart BVI                                          |
| 5. | Info      Smart Technology Limited, a Hong Kong company (“Info Smart Technology) –      wholly owned subsidiary of Infosmart BVI                           |
| 6. | Infoscience      Media Limited, a Hong Kong company (“Infoscience Media”) – wholly owned      subsidiary of Info Smart Technology                    |
| 7. | Infoscience      Holdings Limited, a Hong Kong company – wholly owned subsidiary of      Infoscience Media                                                       |
| 8. | Manwin      International Limited, a Hong Kong company – 50% owned subsidiary of      Infoscience Media                                                          |
| 9. | Discobra      Industria E Comercio de Eletro Eletronica Ltda, a Brazilian company –      99.42% owned subsidiary of InfoscienceMedia                             |

----
No. 11-6071.

#### Stephen Gerard Brandon, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 983, 132 S. Ct. 509,

181 L. Ed. 2d 359,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7789.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
119

Section C: Recommended Funding Levels, by State

South Dakota

Program Intervention Budgets: 2014

Recommended Annual Investment $11.7 million

Deaths in State Caused by Smoking

Annual average smoking-attributable deaths 1,300

Youth aged 0-17 projected to die from smoking 21,000

Annual Costs Incurred in State from Smoking

Total medical $373 million

State Revenue from Tobacco Sales and Settlement

FY 2012 tobacco tax revenue $60.1 million

FY 2012 tobacco settlement payment $24.1 million

Total state revenue from tobacco sales and settlement $84.2 million

Percent Tobacco Revenue to Fund at Recommended Level 14%

Annual Total (Millions) Annual Per Capita

Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended

I. State and Community Interventions 

Multiple social resources working together will 

have the greatest long-term population impact.

$3.5 $4.4 $4.20 $5.28

II. Mass-Reach Health Communication Interventions 

Media interventions work to prevent smoking initiation, 

promote cessation, and shape social norms.

$1.2 $1.7 $1.44 $2.04

III. Cessation Interventions 

Tobacco use treatment is effective and highly cost-effective. $2.7 $4.1 $3.24 $4.92

IV. Surveillance and Evaluation 

Publicly funded programs should be accountable and 

demonstrate effectiveness.

$0.7 $1.0 $0.89 $1.22

V. Infrastructure, Administration, and Management 

Complex, integrated programs require experienced 

staff to provide fiscal management, accountability, 

and coordination.

$0.4 $0.5 $0.44 $0.61

TOTAL $8.5 $11.7 $10.21 $14.07

Note: A justification for each program element and the rationale for the budget estimates are provided in Section A. The funding estimates presented are based on adjustments for changes in population and cost-of-living increases since Best Practices—2007 was published. The actual 

funding required for implementing programs will vary depending on state characteristics, such as prevalence of tobacco use, sociodemographic 

factors, and other factors. See Appendix E for data sources on deaths, costs, revenue, and state-specific factors. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • Office on Smoking and Health

www.cdc.gov/tobacco • tobaccoinfo@cdc.gov • 1 (800) CDC-INFO or 1 (800) 232-4636 

2014
No. 10-1542.

No. 10-1543.

#### Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Petitioner v. Carlos Martinez Gutierrez. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Petitioner v. Damien Antonio Sawyers.

565 U.S. 1104, 132 S. Ct. 994,

181 L. Ed. 2d 725,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 5.

January 6, 2012.

Motion of respondents for divided argument granted.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**443.1**
**KA 12-01432**

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LASHORN SPARROW, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KINDLON SHANKS AND ASSOCIATES, ALBANY (TERENCE KINDLON OF COUNSEL),
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (STEVEN G. COX OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), rendered August 2, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [former (3)]). By failing to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal after presenting evidence, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence ( see People v Hines , 97 NY2d 56, 61, rearg denied 97 NY2d 678). In any event, that contention is without merit ( see generally People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349). The People presented legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that defendant knew that his vehicle had been pulled over by the police, that the persons outside his vehicle were police officers, that the officers were “performing a lawful duty,” and that defendant “cause[d] physical injury to [a] police officer” when he backed his vehicle up and drove away (§ 120.05 [former (3)]). In addition, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see Danielson , 9 NY3d at 349), we reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Montero , 100 AD3d 1555, 1555, lv denied 21 NY3d 945), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We reject defendant’s further contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Viewing the evidence, the law and**-2- 443.1**
**KA 12-01432**

the circumstances of the case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see generally People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147). Finally, we have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that none requires reversal or modification of the judgment.

Entered: May 9, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court