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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 561 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 561

 To require the Secretary of Education to assess the impact of school 
      start times on student health, well-being, and performance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2015

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Education to assess the impact of school 
      start times on student health, well-being, and performance.

    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 ``Assessing Appropriate School Start 
Times Act''.

SEC. 2. ADDITION OF STUDY ON SCHOOL START TIMES TO ``STUDIES OF 
              NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE''.

    Section 5414 (20 U.S.C. 7243c) of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) is amended in subsection 
(a) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Appropriate school start times.--A study assessing 
        the impact of school start times on student health, well-being, 
        and performance.''.

SEC. 3. COMPLETION DATE.

    The study required by section 2 shall be completed not later than 
18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2020270EN.01000101.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9828 — Blackstone/NIBC Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 270/01)

On 7 July 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9828. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9828. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5110 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5110

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to lower the action level for lead 
 in drinking water to 5 parts per billion by the end of 2026, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2016

  Mr. Kildee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to lower the action level for lead 
 in drinking water to 5 parts per billion by the end of 2026, 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 ``Protecting Families from Lead Act of 
2016''.

SEC. 2. TO LOWER THE ACTION LEVEL FOR LEAD IN DRINKING WATER.

    Section 1412(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-
1(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(16) Lead in drinking water.--The Administrator shall 
        revise the national primary drinking water regulation for lead 
        to ensure that--
                    ``(A) not later than December 31, 2020, the action 
                level for lead in drinking water is not more than 10 
                parts per billion; and
                    ``(B) not later than December 31, 2026, the action 
                level for lead in drinking water is not more than 5 
                parts per billion.''.
                                 <all>
```
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">New Horizon Surgical Center, LLC, as Assignee of Charity Calhoun, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Travelers Insurance Company, Appellant. </font></b></div><br><br><p>Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Alla Pecker of counsel), for appellant.Strauss Terry Law Group, for respondent (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Lizette Colon, J.), entered June 29, 2017. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying defendant's motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.</p><p>The proof defendant submitted was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the initial and follow-up verification requests had been properly mailed (<i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), and to demonstrate that defendant had not received the requested verification.</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant was not required to pay or deny plaintiff's claims upon receipt of a "partial response" to defendant's verification requests (<i>see </i>11 NYCRR <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>65-3.8 [a] [1]; [b] [3]; <i>New York &amp; Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2004] ["A claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification is provided"]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: October 18, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 97033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4815-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

Pennsylvania; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-4815-DR), dated September 
11, 2024, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued November 14, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is hereby amended to include the 
following area among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of September 11, 2024.

    Union County for Public Assistance (already designated for 
Individual Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-28599 Filed 12-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
Philip W. DUFFEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2754

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
Shawn HOMANS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-5107

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_science(12)
              - products_publications(60)
              - multimedia_image(3)
              - multimedia_image-141771(3)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(3)

## By Location

              - alaska(4)
              - arizona(3)
              - california(24)
              - florida(1)
              - hawaii(5)
              - idaho(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oregon(3)
              - south dakota(2)
              - virginia(3)
              - (-)washington(2)
              - wisconsin(3)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        March 26, 2020        Transboundary Connectivity Conservation for a Changing Climate

Presentations and Events        June 11, 2019        Tribal Resources for Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments
# C_2020193EN.01003101.xml

| 9.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/31

---

Special Report 13/2020

‘Biodiversity on farmland: CAP contribution has not halted the decline’

(2020/C 193/09)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report 13/2020 ‘Biodiversity on farmland: CAP contribution has not halted the decline’ has just been published.

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

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Adam DAVIS, Jr.

NO. 2018-KH-0839

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that petitioner sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2978)
              - products_software(4)
              - (-)products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - (-)documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - california(7)
              - georgia(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - texas(1)

## By Year

Supporting material        July 13, 2023        Citizen Science Call-to-Action Flyer

Data Access        December 7, 2018        Areas of Land Subsidence in California

Interactive Map        July 16, 2021        The Mojave River:  Lifeblood of the Desert

Data Access        December 18, 2018        San Antonio Creek Valley Hydrologic Monitoring

Data Access        December 19, 2018        Drought & Groundwater in California

Data Access        November 7, 2018        Mojave Groundwater Data

Brochures        October 17, 2019        Powell Center 2019 Seminar: NASA’S GRACE SATELLITE: WHAT IT CAN AND...

Data Access        December 10, 2018        Lower Colorado River Hydrologic Monitoring

Data Access        January 31, 2019        Assessment of Groundwater Quality in the Borrego Valley
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant, v. Marlene NALLY, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Nally, Sr., deceased, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4024

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Leandre HOWARD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 3D18-1451

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
# C_2020210EN.01002401.xml

| 24.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/24

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9357 – FIS/Worldpay)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 210/02)

On 5 July 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9357. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9357. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

30816

Vol. 63, No. 108

Friday, June 5, 1998

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-40005; File No. SR-NASD98-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

National Asssociation of Securities

Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Extension of

Comment Period for Proposal Relating

to Qualified Immunity in Arbitration

Proceedings for Statements Made on

Forms U–4 and U–5

Correction

In notice document 98–13955

beginning on page 29050, in the issue of

Wednesday, May 27, 1998, make the

following correction:

On page 29051, in the first column,

above the FR Doc. line, the signature

was omitted and should read as set forth

below.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97-ANM-20]

Amendment of Class E Airspace;

Livingston, MT, and Butte, MT, and

Removal of Class E Airspace;

Coopertown, MT

Correction

In final rule document 98–14169

beginning on page 29103, in the issue of

Thursday, May 28, 1998, make the

following correction:

§ 71.1 [Corrected]

On page 29104, in the third column,

under the heading ANM MT E5

Livingston, MT [Revised], in the 20th

line, ‘‘112°29′00′′W;’’ should read

‘‘110°29′00′′W;’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
STATE EX REL. Willie JONES v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1076

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 14, 2018

PER CURIAM:

*464Denied. The application is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated his second application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
#### Adolph LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Doe Crupi, Doe Hills, Doe Sandoval and Doe Lloyd, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 80-6078, 81-5023.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 7, 1981.

Decided Aug. 17, 1981.

As Amended Aug. 20, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 11, 1981.

Lewis N. Unger, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellants.

Michael R. Mitchell, Woodland Hills, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GOODWIN, HUG and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Adolph Lyons in 1977 commenced a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Los Angeles, seeking damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief. After an appeal to this court1 had restored two counts of the complaint that had been dismissed by a partial summary judgment, Lyons obtained a preliminary injunction which forbids police officers to use carotid artery or bar arm strangleholds under circumstances that do not threaten death or great bodily harm to the officer. Both sides appeal.

This court will not disturb an order granting a preliminary injunction unless it was an abuse of discretion by the district court. *Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesh*
      *418er, 605 F.2d 1130, 1133-34 (9th Cir.1979); *Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com’n v. Nat. Football,*634 F.2d 1197, 1200-01 (9th Cir.1980). All the trial judge has done, so far, is to tell the city that its police officers may not apply life threatening strangleholds to persons stopped in routine police work unless the application of such force is necessary to prevent serious bodily harm to an officer. This relatively innocuous interference by the judiciary with police practice can hardly be characterized as an abuse of discretion when the record reveals that nine suspects who have been stopped by the police and who have been subdued by the use of carotid and bar arm control holds have subsequently died, allegedly of the injuries sustained in the application of these holds. *Cf. Rizzo v. Goode,*423 U.S. 362, 379, 96 S.Ct. 598, 608, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976) (federal court may not order sweeping structural relief requiring federal court supervision of state police procedures absent “extraordinary circumstances”).

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment issues were briefed and argued by Lyons on cross-appeal in an understandable search for an advisory opinion pending the resumption of what promises to be protracted litigation. Because none of the questions on the cross-appeal arises from an appeala-ble order or judgment over which we have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we express no opinion on them.

The order granting the preliminary injunction is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

The cross-appeal is dismissed.

. *Lyons v. City of Los Angeles,*615 F.2d 1243 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*449 U.S. 934, 101 S.Ct.*333,*66 L.Ed.2d 158 (1980).