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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2045 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2045

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to provide 
producers on a farm with greater flexibility in selecting the crops to 
               be planted on the base acres of the farm.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2005

Mr. Pence (for himself and Ms. Baldwin) introduced the following bill; 
           which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to provide 
producers on a farm with greater flexibility in selecting the crops to 
               be planted on the base acres of the farm.

    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 ``Farming Flexibility Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. PRODUCTION OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FOR PROCESSING ON COVERED 
              COMMODITY BASE ACRES.

    Section 1101 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(7 U.S.C. 7911) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(i) Production of Fruits or Vegetables for Processing.--
            ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), 
        producers on a farm, with the consent of the owner and other 
        producers on the farm, may reduce the base acres for any 
        covered commodity for the farm if the reduced acres are used 
        for the planting and production of fruits or vegetables for 
        processing.
            ``(2) Reversion to covered commodity base acres.--Any 
        reduced acres of a farm devoted to the planting and production 
        of fruits or vegetables during a crop year under paragraph (1) 
        shall be included in base acres for the covered commodity for 
        the subsequent crop year, unless the producers on the farm make 
        the election described in paragraph (1) for the subsequent crop 
        year.
            ``(3) Recalculation of base acres.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), if 
                the Secretary recalculates base acres for a farm, the 
                planting and production of fruits or vegetables for 
                processing under paragraph (1) shall be considered to 
                be the same as the planting, prevented planting, or 
                production of the covered commodity.
                    ``(B) Authority.--Nothing in this subsection 
                provides authority for the Secretary to recalculate 
                base acres for a farm.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### WRIGHT. Respondent, v. KNIGHTS OF MACCABEES OF THE WORLD, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De*1151partment.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Dennis D. Wright against the Knights of Maccabees of the World.

No opinion. Judgment and order reversed on law and facts, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event, upon authority of Mock v. Supreme ■Council of Boyal Arcanum, 121 App. Div. 474, 106 N. Y. Supp. 155._
#### MINSKY v. JACOBS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 15, 1907.)

Action by Louis Minsky against J. Randolph Jacobs.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
#### In re BUTTERFIELD.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 29, 1912.)

In the matter of Julia L. Butter-field. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Camacho, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered January 14, 1983, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

*179MEMORANDA, Second Dept., May, 1985

179

The trial court made a sufficient inquiry upon defendant’s application to withdraw his plea of guilty. On this record, we find no reason to disturb the court’s determination denying the application. Defendant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.2






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











I Paul
Briggs, hereby certify that:





1. The
annual report of the registrant on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the  financial  condition  and results
of operations of the registrant as of the dates and for the periods expressed in
the report.








/s/ Paul
Briggs





Paul
Briggs


Chief
Financial Officer


March 23,
2009
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1875

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Wolf House, located in Norfolk, Arkansas, as 

a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005

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

on Resources 

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the Wolf House, 

located in Norfolk, Arkansas, as a unit of the National 

Park System, 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. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY REGARDING 

4 WOLF HOUSE IN NORFOLK, ARKANSAS. 

5 (a) FINDING.—Congress finds that the Wolf House, 

6 located in Norfolk, Arkansas, is the oldest two-story log 

7 structure, and the oldest territorial courthouse, in the 

8 United States west of the Mississippi River. 
2

•HR 1875 IH 

1 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

2 (1) WOLF HOUSE.—The term ‘‘Wolf House’’ 

3 means the structure known by that name and lo4 cated on Highway 5 in Norfolk, Arkansas. 

5 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

6 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di7 rector of the National Park Service. 

8 (c) STUDY.—The Secretary shall, in consultation 

9 with the State of Arkansas—

10 (1) carry out a study regarding the suitability 

11 and feasibility of designating the Wolf House as a 

12 unit of the National Park System; and 

13 (2) consider management alternatives for the 

14 Wolf House. 

15 (d) STUDY PROCESS AND COMPLETION.—Except as 

16 provided by subsection (e) of this section, section 8(c) of 

17 Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall apply to the 

18 conduct and completion of the study required by this sec19 tion. 

20 (e) SUBMISSION OF STUDY RESULTS.—Not later 

21 than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section, 

22 the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Resources 

23 of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
3

•HR 1875 IH 

1 Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report de2 scribing the results of the study.

Æ
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Cereal Disease Lab: St. Paul, MN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Cereal Rust Bulletins
                    PublicationsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area St. Paul, Minnesota Cereal Disease Lab Docs Cereal Rust Bulletins







2023headline bar **2023 Cereal Rust Bulletins** Cereal rust bulletin #1  4/27/2023
Cereal rust bulletin #2  5/11/2023
Cereal rust bulletin #3  5/26/2023
Cereal rust bulletin #4  6/16/2023
Cereal rust bulletin #5  7/14/2023
Final bulletin for 2023 8/24/2023 **2023 cereal rust collection maps***(Maps are updated as collections**are received.)* Wheat Leaf Rust (11/30/2023)
Oat Crown Rust (08/24/2023)
Wheat Stem Rust (11/29/2023)
Oat Stem Rust (11/29/2023) **2023 cereal rust observation maps***(Maps are updated as reports**are received.)* Wheat Stripe Rust (07/28/2023)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Vegetable Crops Research: Madison, WI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    ScientistsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




Pieter Aertsen, Market woman with vegetable stall, 1567, Oil on wood, 110 x 110 cm, Stiftung preußischer Kulturbesitz, Staatliche Museen, Berlin


Mission


People Bamberg, John Bethke, Paul Busse, James Halterman, Dennis Hamernik, Andy Horejsi, Thomas Mura, Jyostna Rolling, William Schartner, Jesse Senalik, Douglas Simon, Philipp Steffan, Shawn Stewart, Christy Stoltz, Erika Stoneman, Sheila Weng, Yiqun Wiesman, Eric Zalapa, Juan


Midwest Area   Philipp.Simon@ars.usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### The People *ex rel.*J. James O’Connor, Relator, *vs.*Joseph F. Haas *et al.*Respondents.

*Opinion filed October 26, 1909.*

This case is controlled by the decision in *People*v. *Strassheim,*240 Ill. 279.

Original petition for *mandamus.*

Shurtleff & Heizer, for relator.

Harry A. Lewis, and William F. Struckmann, for respondent Haas; Mann & Miller, for other respondents.

Per Curiam :

This was an original proceeding commenced in this court for a writ of *mandamus*to compel Joseph F. Haas, as county clerk of Cook county, to cause to be printed upon the primary ballots of the republican party in Cook county, for the primary election to be held on the 13th day of April, 1909, the relator’s name as a candidate for circuit judge, and involved the construction of certain provisions of “An act to provide for holding primary elections by political parties,” usually called the “Primary Election law of 1908.”

Since this case was taken under advisement an opinion has been filed in the case of *People*v. *Strassheim,*240 Ill. 279, wherein said act was held to be unconstitutional and void. It will therefore be unnecessary to consider the questions argued by the respective parties in the briefs filed in this cause, and the writ of *mandamus,*as prayed for, will be dénied.

*Writ denied.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

GARY DOZIER, )

)

Petitioner, )

) No. 3:13 CV 634

v. )

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION and ORDER

Gary Dozier, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his

prison disciplinary proceeding which was held at the Miami Correctional Facility on

May 10, 2013. Under case number MCF 13-05-108, the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB)

found him guilty of Assault/Battery w/ Serious Bodily Injury in violation of A-102.

Dozier lists five grounds in his petition, but all five of them are fundamentally the same

claim. In Ground One, he argues that the inmate witnesses against him were not

credible because their statements were made to internal affairs while in segregation. In

Ground Two, he argues that prison officials only believe inmate statements when they

are made in support of a disciplinary charge against another inmate. In Ground Three,

he argues that the victim did not see who attacked him, that no correctional officer

witnessed the attack, that he did not have any injuries, and that he did not have any

blood on him. In Ground Four, he again argues that no correctional officer witnessed

the attack. In Ground Five, he argues that eyewitness testimony is frequently faulty. In

sum, he is arguing that the DHB improperly weighed the evidence. He is arguing that
the hearing officer should have disbelieved the witnesses that he credited and believed

the witnesses that he discredited. 

None of these arguments is a basis for habeas corpus relief because district courts

do not “conduct an examination of the entire record, independently assess witness

credibility, or weigh the evidence, but [rather, they] only determine whether the prison

disciplinary board’s decision to revoke good time credits has some factual basis.”

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985) (quotations marks and citation omitted).

Here, Dozier clearly understands that there were other inmates who testified that they

saw him attack the victim. This court will not re-weigh the evidence presented during

his prison disciplinary hearing. See McPherson v. McBride, 188 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir.

1999). “[T]he relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could

support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472

U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). “The Federal Constitution does not require evidence that

logically precludes any conclusion but the one reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at

457. Here, the testimony of those other inmates is some evidence that Dozier attacked

the victim, as the DHB concluded. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the petition pursuant to RULE 4 of

the RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: July 23, 2013

s/ James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
exhibit_10-3






Exhibit 10.3




SCHEDULE OF PARTIES TO
MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


Parties to current form of amended and restated management agreement:
 
	
			
	Name
	 
	Title

	H. Chris Killingstad
	 
	President and Chief Executive Officer

	David W. Huml
	 
	Senior Vice President, Global Marketing

	Carol E. McKnight
	 
	Senior Vice President, Global Human Resources

	Thomas Paulson
	 
	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

	Michael Schaefer
	 
	Senior Vice President, Chief Technical Officer

	Donald B. Westman
	 
	Senior Vice President, Global Operations

	Heidi M. Wilson
	 
	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

	Richard H. Zay
	 
	Senior Vice President, The Americas
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Application Technology Research: Wooster, OH
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Departments
                        Agricultural Engineering
                                    Entomology
                                    Horticulture
                                    Plant Pathology
                                    IR-4 programSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Wooster, Ohio Application Technology Research ATRU





- Home
- Products and Services
- News

Servicesheadline bar  Publications: 1994-Present Research Weather Network Virtual Grower: Visualize the effect of greenhouse management decisions based on overall system function. DepositScan: Evaluate spray deposit distribution on water sensitive paper or Kromekote? cards. DRIFTSIM: Predict the effects of major drift-causing factors on the mean drift distances of spray droplets Droplet evaporation videos: View close-up videos showing how droplets spread and evaporate on hairy and waxy leaf surfaces with and without surfactants PhotoSim


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### ALLEN v. FARLEY et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by James L. Allen against William W. Farley and others. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, supra.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2189 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2189

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the two-year 
  waiting period for divorced spouse's benefits following the divorce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2005

  Mrs. Lowey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the two-year 
  waiting period for divorced spouse's benefits following the divorce.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD FOR DIVORCED SPOUSE'S 
              BENEFITS FOLLOWING THE DIVORCE IN CASES OF PRIOR RECEIPT 
              OF SPOUSE'S BENEFITS.

    (a) Wife's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(b)(5)(A) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ``divorced 
wife--'' and all that follows through ``shall be entitled'' and 
inserting ``divorced wife meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) 
through (D) of paragraph (1), shall be entitled''.
    (b) Husband's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(c)(5)(A) of such Act 
(42 U.S.C. 402(c)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ``divorced husband--'' 
and all that follows through ``shall be entitled'' and inserting 
``divorced husband meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through 
(D) of paragraph (1), shall be entitled''.
    (c) Exemption From Deductions on Account of Work.--Section 
203(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 403(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(2)(A) Except as'' and all that follows 
        through ``the benefit to which'' and inserting the following: 
        ``(2) In any case in which any of the other persons referred to 
        in paragraph (1)(B) is entitled to monthly benefits as a 
        divorced spouse under subsection (b) or (c) of section 202 for 
        any month, the benefit to which''; and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (B).

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 shall apply with respect to 
benefits for months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```