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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2397 

To amend the Small Business Act to allow the use of physical damage 

disaster loans for the construction of safe rooms, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2015 

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

on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to allow the use of physical damage disaster loans for the construction of safe 

rooms, 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 ‘‘Tornado Family Safety 

5 Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. USE OF PHYSICAL DAMAGE DISASTER LOANS TO 

7 CONSTRUCT SAFE ROOMS. 

8 Section 7(b)(1)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 

9 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘mitigating 

10 measures’’ and all that follows through ‘‘modifying strucVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:45 May 23, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2397.IH H2397

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2397 IH

1 tures’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘mitigating measures, 

2 including— 

3 ‘‘(i) construction of retaining walls and sea 

4 walls; 

5 ‘‘(ii) grading and contouring land; and 

6 ‘‘(iii) relocating utilities and modifying 

7 structures, including construction of a safe 

8 room or similar storm shelter designed to pro9 tect property and occupants from tornadoes or 

10 other natural disasters’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 231 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 231

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to deauthorize the 
    Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area Critical Restoration Project.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2015

     Mr. Murphy of Florida (for himself and Mr. Rooney of Florida) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to deauthorize the 
    Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area Critical Restoration Project.

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

SECTION 1. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 528(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-303; 110 Stat. 3768) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
                    ``(E) Project deauthorization.--
                            ``(i) In general.--The project identified 
                        as the `Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area 
                        Critical Restoration Project', carried out 
                        pursuant to this paragraph, shall no longer be 
                        authorized as a Federal project upon execution 
                        of a transfer agreement between the Secretary 
                        and the South Florida Water Management 
                        District.
                            ``(ii) Requirement.--A transfer agreement 
                        referred to in clause (i) shall require that 
                        the South Florida Water Management District 
                        operate the transferred project as an 
                        environmental restoration project to provide 
                        water storage and water treatment options.''.
                                 <all>
```
SENDING AN ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY TO THE HEARING OFFICE? 

Written by YN2 C. Brown, YN2 V. Anderson

Sending an enforcement activity to the Hearing Office requires more 

than putting it in the mail. It requires the processing official to 

transfer control of the enforcement activity in MISLE to the Hearing 

Office. Failure to do so, prevents the Hearing Office from accepting 

the activity for civil penalty action. And routinely our efforts to gain 

control of the activity are met with considerable delay. 

We have instituted what we hope will be an expedited procedure to 

eliminate delay due to failure to transfer control to the Hearing 

Office. Upon discovery of the receipt of an enforcement activity for 

which control was not transferred to the Hearing Office, we will send 

an email requesting that control be transferred to us. Failure to 

transfer control within 4 business days from the date of the email 

will cause the enforcement activity to be returned to the sending unit 

without action. 

Similarly but not quite as often, we find that ownership of an

enforcement activity has been transferred to us. Ownership of an 

enforcement activity should NEVER be transferred to the Hearing 

Office. In this situation, the Hearing Office will transfer ownership 

of the enforcement activity in MISLE back to the originating unit.

And don’t forget when sending an enforcement activity to the 

Hearing Office for civil penalty action that two (2) copies are 

required of everything that is in the file; one copy for the Hearing 

Officer and one copy for the party. Failure to do so will cause the 

enforcement activity to be returned without action. Beware of CDs 

and DVDs - the party may not be able to read them. More to come on 

this later!
Finally, we need to be able to find the activity when you call to make 

an inquiry concerning it. This is akin to finding a needle in a 

haystack due to the number of files moving at any given time in the 

Hearing Office. Help us help you! Each file folder should be labeled 

with the enforcement activity number, not the investigation number. 

And the numbers should read in a vertical row on the right hand 

edge of the folder.
# L_2010110EN.01002901.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 110/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 110/29

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 26 April 2010

appointing nine members of the Court of Auditors

(2010/246/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(2) thereof,

Having regard to the opinions of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | The terms of office of Mr Jan KINŠT, Ms Kersti KALJULAID, Mr Igors LUDBORŽS, Ms Irena PETRUŠKEVIČIENĖ, Mr Gejza HALÁSZ, Mr Josef BONNICI, Mr Jacek UCZKIEWICZ, Mr Vojko Anton ANTONČIČ and Mr Július MOLNÁR expire on 6 May 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The terms of office of Mr Jan KINŠT, Ms Kersti KALJULAID, Mr Igors LUDBORŽS, Ms Irena PETRUŠKEVIČIENĖ, Mr Gejza HALÁSZ, Mr Josef BONNICI, Mr Jacek UCZKIEWICZ, Mr Vojko Anton ANTONČIČ and Mr Július MOLNÁR expire on 6 May 2010.

| (2) | New appointments should therefore be made, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

New appointments should therefore be made,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Sole Article

The following are hereby appointed members of the Court of Auditors for the period from 7 May 2010 to 6 May 2016:

| — | Mr Jan KINŠT, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Jan KINŠT,

| — | Ms Kersti KALJULAID, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Kersti KALJULAID,

| — | Mr Igors LUDBORŽS, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Igors LUDBORŽS,

| — | Ms Rasa BUDBERGYTĖ, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Rasa BUDBERGYTĖ,

| — | Mr Szabolcs FAZAKAS, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Szabolcs FAZAKAS,

| — | Mr Louis GALEA, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Louis GALEA,

| — | Mr Augustyn KUBIK, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Augustyn KUBIK,

| — | Mr Milan Martin CVIKL, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Milan Martin CVIKL,

| — | Mr Ladislav BALKO. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Ladislav BALKO.

Done at Luxembourg, 26 April 2010.

For the Council

The President

M. Á. MORATINOS

---

(1)  Opinions delivered on 25 March 2010 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

1

---
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

 

______________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

 

Vs 

 

DAVID BAARSVIK 

Respondent 

 

______________________ 

Docket Number CG S&R 99-0026 

CG Case No. PA 99000804 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 

Issued: August 26, 2001

 

Issued by: Edwin M. Bladen, Administrative Law Judge

 

 

This matter is presently before me as the result of the Vice Commandant’s 

Decision No. 2630 finding that my decision of March 27, 2000 is reversed regarding the 

original charge of Misconduct with one specification (July 9, 1999) and the original 

charge of Negligence with one specification (July 9, 1999), and which further remanded 

the case with respect to the Amended (new) Complaint of Negligence dated January 18, 

2000. 

On August 21, 2002, Respondent by his counsel has filed a motion to dismiss the 

Amended/New Complaint alleging Negligence. The Coast Guard has filed a response 

concurring in the motion to dismiss. 

Respondent points out this matter is now two and one-half years old and it is 

likely witnesses memories have faded and the additional evidence needed to defend and 

Order of Dismissal - 1 
prosecute this matter may be difficult to secure. I concur in Respondent’s counsel’s 

assessment. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, the Coast Guard Amended/New Complaint 

dated January 18, 2000 is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: August 26, 2002. 

 __________________________ 

 Edwin M Bladen

 Administrative Law Judge 

 

Order of Dismissal - 2
Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 12, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00321-CR

RAYMOND MIRELES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1627845

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child 

between the age of fourteen and seventeen. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a 

brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The 

brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by 

assigning issues that might arguably support the appeal, and explaining why those 

issues do not raise arguable error. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1969).
2

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 

60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in 

the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for 

review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Poissant and Wilson.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
balance sheets and statements of operations and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             53
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  43,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (420)
<INVENTORY>                                    35,825
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               92,676 
<PP&E>                                        103,251
<DEPRECIATION>                               (15,011)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                527,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          77,162
<BONDS>                                       277,781
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         198,528
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (41,400)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  527,071
<SALES>                                       348,288 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              348,288
<CGS>                                         135,777         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 296,227 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               94,665
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             23,634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (66,418)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (21,304)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (45,114)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                 (45,114)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        

</TABLE>
#### Donovan Humphrey, Appellant, v Edward Campany et al., Defendants, and Ben Pennetta, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 587]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered May 31, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant Ben Pennetta to videotape the deposition of plaintiff.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.3


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


   In connection with the Annual Report of United Energy Corp. (the "Company")
on this Amendment No. 2 to Form 10-K/A for the year ending March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Ronald Wilen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

   (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


Dated:   July 16, 2004              By: /s/ Ronald Wilen
                                       -----------------
                                       Ronald Wilen
                                       Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on this Amendment No. 2 to Form
10-K/A pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald C. Daniels, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), rendered August 15, 1986, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
First Department,

December, 1986

(December 2, 1986)

#### Stephen Hughes et al., Respondents, v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., et al., Appellants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered August 30, 1985, denying defendants’ posttrial motion to reduce the $800,000 verdict in plaintiff Calisi’s favor by $36,000, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff Calisi, a New York City police officer and pedestrian at the time, was injured through the negligent operation of a covered motor vehicle, as a result of which he never again returned to work. For the first 14 months following the accident he received his full salary. He thereafter retired as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident on a three-quarters disability pension, which he will receive for the remainder of his life. At the trial of his action against the tort-feasors, defendants herein, he sought and was awarded lost earnings from the date of the accident to the date of the trial. His expert testified that a police officer’s base salary was never less than $24,215 in the 3!á-year interval between the accident and the trial, and in the last year reached $30,126. Thus, said plaintiff’s gross lost earnings at the time of trial were projected to be $125,000. The jury awarded him $140,000 for lost earnings and pain and suffering from the date of accident. He was also awarded $580,000 in future lost earnings.

After the trial, defendants moved to reduce the verdict by $36,000, the amount of basic economic loss for lost earnings, i.e., up to $1,000 per month for the first 36 months (Insurance Law § 5102 [a] [2]), which, they argued, may not be recovered in a plenary action to recover for a serious injury. Special Term denied the motion. We reverse.

*178Since basic economic loss may not be recovered in a plenary action by a covered person against another covered person (Insurance Law § 5104 [a]), plaintiff Calisi’s award of full lost earnings from the date of accident must be reduced by $36,000, the basic economic loss component of that award. That said plaintiff did not receive first-party benefits is, contrary to his argument, irrelevant, since the prohibition against the recovery of basic economic loss from a tort-feasor is absolute. *(See, Matter of Granger v Urda,*44 NY2d 91; *McDonnell v Best Bus Co.,*97 AD2d 433; *Fiveson v Kondenar,*110 AD2d 749.) In any event, the terms "basic economic loss” and "first-party benefits”, as used in the No-Fault Law, are not synonymous. *(Fiveson v Kondenar, supra,*at p 750.) Since a police officer’s pretrial monthly salary significantly exceeded $1,000, which figure was used as a measure of plaintiff Calisi’s pretrial lost earnings, and he was disabled for at least three years after the accident, the lost earnings portion of his basic economic loss was $36,000. This amount, which we do not have any difficulty in extricating from the $140,000 pretrial damage award, mostly representing lost earnings, must be deducted from the verdict without consideration of any other benefits he received. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Fein and Wallach, JJ.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2423 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to valid 

scientific evidence. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2015 

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 

respect to valid scientific evidence. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VALID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. 

4 Section 513(a)(3)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

5 Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(3)(B)) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as sub7 clauses (I) and (II), respectively; 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘(B) If the Secretary’’ and in9 serting ‘‘(B)(i) If the Secretary’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2423 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) Valid scientific evidence for purposes 

2 of clause (i) may include: 

3 ‘‘(I) evidence described in well-docu4 mented case histories, including registry 

5 data, that are collected and monitored 

6 under an acceptable protocol; 

7 ‘‘(II) studies published in peer-re8 viewed journals; and 

9 ‘‘(III) data collected in countries other 

10 than the United States so long as such 

11 data otherwise meets the criteria specified 

12 in this subparagraph. 

13 ‘‘(iii) In the case of a study published in 

14 a peer-reviewed journal that is offered as valid 

15 scientific evidence for purposes of clause (i), the 

16 Secretary may request data underlying the 

17 study if— 

18 ‘‘(I) the Secretary, in making such re19 quest, complies with the requirement of 

20 subparagraph (D)(ii) to consider the least 

21 burdensome appropriate means of evalu22 ating device effectiveness or subsection 

23 (i)(1)(D) to consider the least burdensome 

24 means of determining substantial equiva25 lence, as applicable; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2423 IH

1 ‘‘(II) the Secretary furnishes a written 

2 rationale for so requesting the underlying 

3 data together with such request; and 

4 ‘‘(III) if the requested underlying data 

5 for such a study are unavailable, the Sec6 retary shall consider such study to be part 

7 of the totality of the evidence with respect 

8 to the device, as the Secretary determines 

9 appropriate.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 333-12107, No. 333-15237, No. 333-88077, No. 333-88079 and No.
333-61570) pertaining to the Company's Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Amended and
Restated Omnibus Stock Plan and 2001 Stock Option Plan for Directors of ACE*COMM
Corporation of our report dated August 12, 2002, with respect to the financial
statements and schedule of ACE*COMM Corporation included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2002, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.




                                           /s/Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, Virginia
September 9, 2002