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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4708 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4708

 To increase the refundable amount of the child credit in the case of 
taxpayers who had a primary residence in the Hurricane Katrina disaster 
                        area on August 28, 2005.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2006

 Mr. Rangel (for himself, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Emanuel, and 
Mr. Melancon) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To increase the refundable amount of the child credit in the case of 
taxpayers who had a primary residence in the Hurricane Katrina disaster 
                        area on August 28, 2005.

    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 ``Relief for Working Family Victims of 
Hurricane Katrina Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. WORKING FAMILY TAX RELIEF FOR HURRICANE KATRINA DISASTER AREA 
              RESIDENTS.

    For purposes of section 24(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to portion of child tax credit made refundable), in the case 
of any taxable year beginning during 2006 or 2007, with respect to any 
taxpayer who had a primary residence in the Hurricane Katrina disaster 
area (as defined in section 1400M(2) of such Code) on August 28, 2005, 
clause (i) of section 24(d)(1)(B) of such Code shall be applied by 
substituting 10 percent of the taxpayer's earned income for such 
taxable year for the amount which would otherwise be determined under 
such clause for such taxable year. A taxpayer may elect not to have 
this section apply for any taxable year.
                                 <all>
```
App J 

DSCPH 4155.2 

Monograph No. BO7 

09 September 2005 

NSN: 8940-01-368-0321

Item: Gravy Mix, Pork, Instant 

Document: COTS 

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: NA Component Classification: Ancillary 

Estimated Shelf Life: 24 months 80°F 

Item Characteristics

Appearance: 

Gravy Mix shall be free flowing medium brown powder uniform in composition and 

appearance, free from lumps that do not fall apart under light finger pressure. 

Prepared: Medium brown moderately thick gravy.

Odor: Pork Gravy Mix shall possess a slight cooked pork aroma with various spices. 

Prepared: Cooked pork aroma with spice notes. 

Flavor: Pork Gravy Mix shall possess a cooked pork flavor with mild spice notes. 

Prepared: Cooked pork flavor with spice notes.

Texture: Gravy mix shall be free flowing. 

Prepared: Product shall readily attain a smooth gravy consistency. 

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: May darken and/or clump. 

Odor: May become musty, rancid, stale, bitter or other objectionable odors. 

Flavor: May become musty, rancid, stale, bitter or other objectionable flavors. 

Texture: May Clump. 

Prepared: Product shall readily attain a smooth gravy consistency. 

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

Prepare as directed on label.
App J 

DSCPH 4155.2 

 ************************* 

 MONOGRAPH No. BV1 

 ************************* 

ITEM: BEANS, GREEN, STYLE E, Style A or B, GRADE A, Canned, Size 2-6 

NSN: 8915-00-616-4820 SPECIFICATION: US STDS for Grades 

COMPONENT CLASSIFICATION: Secondary 

CHARACTERISTICS OF ITEM: 

APPEARANCE: Relatively uniformly sliced pieces (approximately 1” in length) of green beans. 

 

ODOR: Slightly sweet, typical of heat processed green beans. 

FLAVOR: Slightly sweet with a very slight salt flavor. 

TEXTURE: Soft and slightly mushy (Grades A and B for texture permitted) 

ESTIMATED SHELF-LIFE AT: 80 DEGREES F: 36 months 

100 DEGREES F: 6 months 

 

POSSIBLE DETERIORATIVE CHANGES: 

Appearance: Beans may lose some of their green color (fading). 

Odor: Slightly bitter, sour. 

Flavor: Beans may develop a bitter taste and be slightly sour. 

Texture: Beans may become very soft/mushy and watery, with some breaking open of 

the beans and sloughing of the outer shell. 

UNIQUE EXAMINATION/TEST PROCEDURES: None. 

SPECIAL NOTES: None
No. 11-6708.

#### Fatemeh Najafian, Petitioner v. Capital One N.A., et al.

565 U.S. 1082, 132 S. Ct. 822,

181 L. Ed. 2d 532,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8777,

December 5, 2011.

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

Same case below, 426 Fed. Appx. 191.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 8501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4039]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 9-2007]


Foreign-Trade Zone 38 Spartanburg County, South Carolina, 
Termination of Review of Application for Subzone, Leiner Health 
Products LLC (Ibuprofen Products), Fort Mill, South Carolina

    Notice is hereby given of termination of review of a subzone 
application submitted by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, 
grantee of FTZ 38, requesting special-purpose subzone status with 
manufacturing authority for certain ibuprofen products at the 
pharmaceutical manufacturing facility of Leiner Health Products, LLC, 
located in Fort Mill, South Carolina. The application was filed on 
March 2, 2007 (72 FR 10643, 3/9/07).
    The termination is the result of changed circumstances, and the 
case has been closed without prejudice.

    Dated: February 17, 2009.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-4039 Filed 2-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
No. 11-6209.

#### Thomas Kemp, Petitioner v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 1016, 132 S. Ct. 553,

181 L. Ed. 2d 400,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8019.

November 7, 2011.

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

Same case below, 638 F.3d 1245.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at April 30, 199 (Unaudited) and
the Consolidated Statement of Incomee for the three months ended April 30, 1999
(Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                          12,803
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,021
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,824
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,260
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            47
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,871
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,948
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,398)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,398)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,398)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
No. 09-689.

#### Mark J. Hunsberger, et ux., Petitioners v. J. A. Wood, Deputy Sheriff, Botetourt County, Virginia.

559 U.S. 938, 130 S. Ct. 1523,

176 L. Ed. 2d 113,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1416,

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 570 F.3d 546.
July 11, 2016

 When your co-worker/friend/peer has been

sexually assaulted, what do you do?

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 HQs SAPR 703-767-5141 or 703-767-2625

 Encourage the victim to seek help and information from the SARC. 

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

DLA OIG. 

 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.”

SEXUAL ASSAULT RESPONSE 

For Employees
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4656 

To increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency for carrying out the national flood insurance program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2006 

Mr. JINDAL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the national 

flood insurance program. 

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 ‘‘National Flood Insur5 ance Program Enhanced Borrowing Authority Act of 

6 2006’’. 

7 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY. 

8 The first sentence of subsection (a) of section 1309 

9 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

10 4016(a)), as amended by section 2 of the National Flood 
2 

•HR 4656 IH 

1 Insurance Program Further Enhanced Borrowing Author2 ity Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–106; 119 Stat. 2288), 

3 is amended by striking ‘‘$18,500,000,000’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘$24,100,000,000’’. 

Æ
<PAGE>


     EXHIBIT 99.1


                      CERTIFICATION OF THE CEO 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 Sturgis Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric L. Eishen,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 my knowledge:


      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 fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Company.

Date   May 13, 2003           /s/ Eric L. Eishen
       ------------           --------------------------------------
                              Eric L. Eishen, President, Chief Executive Officer
# C_2016434EN.01000301.xml

| 24.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 434/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/3

---

Special Report No 31/2016

‘Spending at least one euro in every five from the EU budget on climate action: ambitious work underway, but at serious risk of falling short’

(2016/C 434/03)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 31/2016 ‘Spending at least one euro in every five from the EU budget on climate action: ambitious work underway, but at serious risk of falling short’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu

---
No. 09-8137.

#### Timothy Leggett, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 950, 130 S. Ct. 1534,

176 L. Ed. 2d 132,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1143.

February 22, 2010.

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

Lansing, Michigan 

October 3, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136471 & (21) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

OBADIAH KRUSE, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136471 

 COA: 281910 
 

WCAC: 07-000079 

CORT FURNITURE RENTAL and 

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF 

CONNECTICUT, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion to file a supplement to the application is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2008 order of the Court of 

Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to 

appeal, we REMAND this case to the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission 

(WCAC) for reconsideration in light of Stokes v Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich 266 (2008). 

The WCAC may remand this case to the Board of Magistrates for the taking of additional 

proofs and for further findings upon the request of a party. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

CAVANAGH, J., would deny leave to appeal.

 WEAVER, J. (dissenting). 

I dissent from the order remanding this case to the Workers’ Compensation 

Appellate Commission for reconsideration in light of Stokes v Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich 

266 (2008). 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

2 

Because I dissented from the majority opinion in Stokes, I would grant leave to 

appeal in this case to consider whether the Stokes majority reached the correct decision in 

Stokes.

 KELLY, J., joins the statement of WEAVER, J. 

0930 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 3, 2008 

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 1067700
<NAME> R.A.B. ENTERPRISES, INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          3,102
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  45,816
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,929)
<INVENTORY>                                    69,302
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              122,219
<PP&E>                                         49,559
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,913)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                268,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          74,747
<BONDS>                                        99,150
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                     37,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  268,940
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              271,045
<CGS>                                         211,057
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  58,394
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              269,451
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              7,856
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,262)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,282)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,980)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 4,742
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      762
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
No. 11-7312.

#### Octavius Lee Durdley, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1127, 132 S. Ct. 1038,

181 L. Ed. 2d 764,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 98.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 436 Fed. Appx. 966.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 6, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-21091

Summary Calendar

 

GUY RALPH PEREA, President of the United States;

TAMMY DAWN PEREA, Vice President of the United States,

Petitioners-Appellants,

versus

GEORGE W. BUSH, Governor of Texas; HOUSTON INTERCONTINENTAL

AIRPORT, also known as Bush Intercontinental Airport; KATHYN

CASSIDY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-03-CV-3881

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

Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Guy Ralph Perea and Tammy Dawn Perea, who are apparently a

husband and wife and also state prisoners in California, filed

this action in federal district court in Texas under the habeas

corpus statutes. The district court dismissed the case,

correctly concluding that personal jurisdiction was lacking. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); In re Green, 39 F.3d 582, 583 (5th Cir.

1994). 
No. 03-21091

-2-

Because the Pereas offer no factual or legal basis for

challenging this conclusion, the appeal is DISMISSED as

frivolous. 5TH CIR. R. 42.3.
Casting and Forging

Email this event to me @

Invalid Email Address!Invalid Email Address!

Start Date/Time:

Tuesday, November 12, 2024 2:00 PM

End Date/Time:

Tuesday, November 12, 2024 3:00 PM

Recurring Event:

One time event

Importance:

Normal Priority

Location:

Virtual/Online

Description:

The TKO seminar is a course that teaches vendors how to start doing business with DLA. Vendors learn how to find open solicitations, how to submit a quote through the DLA Internet Bid Board System (DIBBS), the procedures for viewing/downloading drawings, and how to use Invoicing, Receipt, Acceptance and Property Transfer (iRAPT) to get paid. There are also many other relevant topics of discussion. All Sessions are free and held virtually.

Training is provided by DLA Land and Maritime in Columbus, OH, but benefits all DLA suppliers.

Advance registration is required. Make reservations at:: https://www.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJIsceurqD0jGis0-IZHtsQMtpsUzyWoN0w

Enrolled Users:

Alandra Jones

                - Return
                - 
                - Export
No. 09-8187.

#### Andrew Rhett, Petitioner v. T. Michael Power.

559 U.S. 951, 130 S. Ct. 1535,

176 L. Ed. 2d 132,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1340.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
No. 11-7123.

#### Steven Lee Varnum, Petitioner v. Greg Lewis, Acting Warden.

565 U.S. 1124, 132 S. Ct. 1029,

181 L. Ed. 2d 758,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 77.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 430 Fed. Appx. 589.