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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 225 

To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to remove the exclusion of 

pistols, revolvers, and other firearms from the definition of consumer 

product in order to permit the issuance of safety standards for such 

articles by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2015 

Ms. KELLY of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to remove the 

exclusion of pistols, revolvers, and other firearms from 

the definition of consumer product in order to permit 

the issuance of safety standards for such articles by 

the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

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 ‘‘Firearm Safety Act 

5 of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 225 IH

1 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF EXCLUSION OF FIREARMS FROM THE 

2 DEFINITION OF CONSUMER PRODUCT. 

3 Section 3(a)(5) of the Consumer Product Safety Act 

4 (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5)) is amended by striking subpara5 graph (E) and redesignating subparagraphs (F) through 

6 (I) as subparagraphs (E) through (H), respectively. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPANY'S
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001001185
<NAME>                        IDX SYSTEMS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                APR-01-1999              APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1999              JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1                        1
<CASH>                              7,338                   13,576
<SECURITIES>                       63,281                  105,469
<RECEIVABLES>                     114,519                   82,231
<ALLOWANCES>                       (2,724)                  (1,842)
<INVENTORY>                             0                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  203,521                  210,251
<PP&E>                             94,093                   65,530
<DEPRECIATION>                     43,520                   31,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    274,104                  259,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              63,227                   56,202
<BONDS>                                 0                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0                        0
<PREFERRED>                             0                        0
<COMMON>                              357                      273
<OTHER-SE>                         201,285                 192,619
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       274,104                 259,943
<SALES>                             91,255                  86,162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    91,255                  86,162
<CGS>                               56,295                  48,094
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       38,680                  28,127
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       116                     139
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     221                     240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (2,930)                 10,966
<INCOME-TAX>                          (680)                  5,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (2,250)                  5,566
<DISCONTINUED>                           0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0                       0
<CHANGES>                                0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                        (2,250)                  5,566
<EPS-BASIC>                        (0.08)                   0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.08)                   0.20



</TABLE>
#### Stewart M. Shute, jr., Appellant, v Robert McLusky et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[945 NYS2d 890]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John C. Cherundolo, A.J.), entered November 4, 2011. The order settled the record for appeals from judgments entered July 14, 2010 and September 9, 2010.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see*CPLR 5511; *see also Town of Massena v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 45*NY2d 482, 488 [1978]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
732 A.2d 1198

#### In the Matter of Bonnie Ann WOOLEVER.

No. 526 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 22, 1999.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 22nd day of June, 1999, Bonnie Ann Woolever having been convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County of the crime of insurance fraud in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4117(a)(2) and the said Bonnie Ann Woolever having requested that she be placed on temporary suspension pursuant to Rule 214, Pa.R.D.E., it is hereby

ORDERED that Bonnie Ann Woolever is placed on temporary suspension and she shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. The matter is referred to the Disciplinary board pursuant to Rule 214(f)(1), Pa.R.D.E.
#### Adelaide Spencer v. The State.

Where a woman was indited for *aim. con.*with a man, the declarations of the seducer are but hearsay evidence, and should not be admitted.

The seducer is not a competent witness against the woman seduced.

Appeal from Brazoria. The case was tried before Hon. Benjamin Shropshire, one of the district judges.

Adelaide Spencer, a 'freed woman, was indicted for fornication with one Churchill.

When evidence of what Churchill said about it was offered the accused objected, but the objection was overruled. Mainly on this evidence the negreas was convicted. She appealed.

*Munsen*Garnett, for appellant.

—The evidence was but hearsay. Even had Churchill been sworn, his evidence ought to have been excluded. (Simmons v. Simmons, 13 Tex., 468.)

*65Ho brief for the state has been furnished to the *Reporter.*

Lindsay, J.

—The plaintiff in error was indicted for the alleged offense of fornication. The charge was that she had had illicit carnal intercourse with one William P. Churchill. The only proof adduced to establish her guilt was the testimony of two witnesses, who stated that they had heard the said William P. Churchill say that he had visited the plaintiff in error at night; from which the inference was drawn by the jury that a meretricious connection had taken place between them. Under the rules of law this was but hearsay evidence, and ought to have been excluded from the jury. Besides, William P. Churchill himself, a *particeps criminis*in the offense charged, if he had been offered as a witness, should not have been permitted testify to his own shame and dishonor in order to secure a conviction of the victim of his own guilty amours. The judgment of the court is

■Reversed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

MICHAEL TIMOTHY FOUTZ,

Respondent.

Docket Number 2023-0193

CG Enforcement Activit) Number 7680395

Jssued: Julv 14,2023

Bv: Honorable Georse J. Jordan. Administrative Law Judse

Appearances:

BOBBI JO ROBERTSON

USCG Sector Mobile

For the Coast Guard

MICHAEL TIMOTHY FOUTZ, Pro se

For the Respondent

YS

Complainant,

CONSENT ORDER

l
ER VING E

On June 15,2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for

of Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the amended Settlen,ent

N

t

pproval

the case

llnd it is

fair and reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 3 C.F.R. 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration olthe record. it is hereby ORDERED. the am

Agreement is APPROVED in ftll and incorporated herein by refet'ence. Consen Order

shall constitute full, final, and complete adjudication olthis proceeding.

SO ORDERED.

Done and dated July 14,2023,

Seattle. Washington

George J. Jordan

Administrative Law Judge

United States Coast Guard

2
Summary of Compensation for
Non-Employee Directors and Named Executive Officers
 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary
 Annual Retainer
 
 Board and Committee Meeting Fees
 
 Annual Equity Award
  Named Executive Officer Compensation Summary
  Name
    
    Title
    
    SalaryStephen J. Harrison
    
    Chief Executive Officer
    
    $
    500,000Edward L. Pierce
    
    President
    
    
    400,000Thomas M. Harrison, Jr. (1)
    
    Former Executive Vice President and Secretary
    
    
    300,000Kevin P. Cohn
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
    
    
    250,000Randy L. Reed (1)
    
    Former Senior Vice President  Sales
    
    
    213,500Dan L. Walker
    
    Senior Vice President  Operations
    
    
    207,500Keith E. Bornemann
    
    Corporate Controller
    
    
    135,000
  
 (1)
    
    Messrs. Thomas M. Harrison, Jr. and Reed entered into separation agreements
effective December 31, 2007 and May 22, 2008, respectively.




---



##### 



Additional Information
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy

# ACTION:

Designation of Performance Review Board Chair.

# SUMMARY:

This notice provides the Performance Review Board Chair designee for the Department of Energy. This listing supersedes all previously published lists of Performance Review Board Chair.

# DATES:

This appointment is effective as of September 9, 2021.

Dennis M. Miotla (Primary)

Johnny O. Moore (Alternate)

## Signing Authority

                    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September 9, 2021, by Farhana Hossain, Acting Director for Office of Corporate Executive Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE  Federal Register  Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Signed in Washington, DC, on September 14, 2021.

Treena V. Garrett,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

[FR Doc. 2021-20115 Filed 9-16-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Davis, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered January 4, 1985.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### Johnson, *et al. v.*Colvin.

*Ejectment.*

(Decided May 21, 1914.

65 South. 328.)

*Charge of Court; Misleading or Argumentative.*— Charges which are confused, misleading or argumentative may he refused without error.

Appeal from Coffee Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

Ejectment by Nancy Colvin against Camilla Johnson and another. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

H. L. Martin, for appellant.

Counsel discusses the errors assigned predicated upon the court’s ruling on the evidence, and the giving and refusal of charges, and cites authority in support of his contentions, which is not deemed necessary to be here set out.

R. H. Arrington, for appellee.

Counsel discuss the errors assigned, but without citation of authority. j

*539MAYFIELD, J. —

The action was ejectment, by appellee against appellants. Appellee is the mother of one of the appellants, and the mother-in-law of the other. The chief question litigated was whether or not a deed from the mother to her daughter was properly and fully executed. The mother could not write, and signed the deed by mark. The instrument purported to be acknowledged before a justice of the peace of Geneva county. The grantor and the grantee lived in Coffee county, and it was claimed by the grantor that' the acknowledgment was had at her home in Coffee county, and by the grantee that it was made in Geneva county at the home of the grantor’s son. Again, it was claimed by the grantor that the deed was never delivered, while the grantee claimed that it was delivered soon after its date, which was February 4, 1904. Much evidence was introduced, on both sides, as to these two disputed facts. The evidence was in direct conflict, and the jury decided in favor of the plaintiff, the grantor and mother.

The appellants assign a number of errors as to the admission and the rejection of evidence. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss any of these rulings. It is sufficient to say that each has been separately and carefuly examined, and that we find no error as to any. The appellants also requested several written instructions to the jury, which were refused by the court, and, we think, properly so. They were each properly refused, because confused, misleading, argumentative, or bad in form or substance.

Affirmed.

Anderson, C. J., and Somerville and Gardner, JJ., concur.
(19 Misc. Rep. 70.)

#### THORBURN v. DURRA et al.

(Supreme Court. Appellate Term, First Department.

December 28, 1896.)

Pleading—Amendment—Effect.

In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, where the verified notice and the pleadings were drawn, and the trial proceeded on the theory that D. was the owner, and L. the contractor, and the lienor the subcontractor, an amendment of the complaint, charging that D. was the employer and L. a mere intermediary, introduced a new cause of action; hence, the amended complaint became a substitute for the original, and upon it the issues were determinable.

Appeal from Ninth district-court.

Action by Louise H. Thorburn against David L. Durra and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before DALY, P. J., and McADAM and BISCHOFF, JJ.

H. L. Toplitz, for appellant.

Andrew Blake, for respondents.

McADAM, J.

The action as originally commenced was to foreclose a mechanic’s lien claimed by Donald Thorburn, who assigned his lien and all moneys to be collected from it to the plaintiff. .The lien was upon property on Third avenue, between Forty-Eighth and Forty-Ninth streets, this city. In the verified notice the defendant Durra is described as owner, and William Lawson as the person by whom the lienor was employed. In other words, Lawson was the contractor and the lienor subcontractor. The pleadings were drawn, and the trial proceeded upon the theory that the parties held these relations to the property and to each other; but at the close of the case the plaintiff, by leave of the • court, amended her complaint, placing the right of recovery on the specific ground that Durra was the employer and Lawson a mere intermediary. This constituted a complete change of front by introducing an entirely new cause of action. The amended pleading became a substitute for the original, and upon it the issues were to be determined. 4 Wait, Prac. 690; Baylies, Code PI. 311.- The proofs did not warrant a recovery under the amended pleading, and the justice properly found in favor of the defendant. Nor could there í)e a personal judgment against Lawson, for by the amendment he was no longer an independent contractor, but a mere agent of Durra, the owner. The notice alleged no personal claim against Durra, and the assignment to the plaintiff *879does not assume to transfer any claim against Durra, but merely the lien and the moneys to be collected thereunder. This prevents us from "examining the different questions raised by the appellant in her points, all of which are based on a supposed continuance of the lien, which for all the purposes of the action seems to have been effectually waived.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6068

STEPHEN M. CHRZAN, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FRANKLIN FREEMAN; AARON JOHNSON; MARTIN J.

MCDADE; MARVIN SPARROW,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Joseph C. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-95-846-5-H)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 4, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen M. Chrzan, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Chrzan v. Freeman, No. CA-95-846-5-H (E.D.N.C. Dec. 11,

1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2021411EN.01000401.xml

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 411/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 411/4

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10428 – CDPQ/OTPP/CMLIC)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 411/04)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (‘CDPQ’, Canada), |
| --- | --- |

—

Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (‘CDPQ’, Canada),

| — | Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (‘OTPP’, Canada), |
| --- | --- |

—

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (‘OTPP’, Canada),

| — | Columbian Mutual Life Insurance Company (‘CMLIC’, US). |
| --- | --- |

—

Columbian Mutual Life Insurance Company (‘CMLIC’, US).

CDPQ and OTPP acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of CMLIC.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | CDPQ is a long-term institutional investor managing funds primarily for public and para-public pension and insurance plans headquartered in Québec City. It invests these funds in major financial markets, private equity, fixed income, infrastructure and real estate. |
| --- | --- |

—

CDPQ is a long-term institutional investor managing funds primarily for public and para-public pension and insurance plans headquartered in Québec City. It invests these funds in major financial markets, private equity, fixed income, infrastructure and real estate.

| — | OTPP is concerned with the administration of pension benefits and the investment of pension plan assets on behalf of approximately 331,000 active and retired teachers in the Canadian province of Ontario. |
| --- | --- |

—

OTPP is concerned with the administration of pension benefits and the investment of pension plan assets on behalf of approximately 331,000 active and retired teachers in the Canadian province of Ontario.

| — | CMLIC is a US-only provider of individual life insurance. |
| --- | --- |

—

CMLIC is a US-only provider of individual life insurance.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10428 – CDPQ/OTPP/CMLIC

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
Listen

# Minnesota Advisory Committee Public Web Briefing on Equal Access to Housing Opportunities - Panel II

The Minnesota Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is hosting a series of online public panel briefings to hear testimony regarding the potential civil rights concerns related to housing affordability.

The purpose of these briefings is to examine the efficacy of the 2020-2023 Strategic Plan created by Minnesota Housing, the state’s housing finance agency. In particular, the Committee hopes to understand whether this plan addressed civil rights concerns related to housing affordability on the basis of race, color, disability status, national origin, age, religion, and/or sex. 

Friday, December 8, 2023 - 1:00 PM

Press Release

Minnesota

-  Event Calendar 
-  Public Briefings 
-  Commission Business Meetings 
-  Advisory Committees Meetings 
-  Archives